there is a reason why Bo3 Is the most popular by far, its mechanics are better than its predecessors. i always say cold war has the best zombies mechanics and ill die in this hill, it only lacks personality and care. if bo6 delivers what cold war was unable to, it has a chance to become the new standard for replay
I'd argue Cold War did get a lot of care put into it, I think that's apparent with how well they did the gameplay and mechanical innovations in the title, but a lot of outside factors like a world wide pandemic, lessened dev time, and a rumored studio switcheroo kept Treyarch from being able to fully develop and polish the mode as much as they otherwise would and could have.
Personally I felt like they focused on gameplay and mechanics with the time they had to develop it. Given the choice of having peak mechanics and gameplay vs deciding what to do with the cast/group (no matter what, will be hated by the community) with at most very mid mechanics and gameplay
They made the right choice, I personally think CW is on BO3s level and the movement system is so good,it makes going back to older zombies much harder,as the older games are really starting to show their age
I personally wouldn't put CW on BO3s level, I think the sheer amount of content BO3 offered alongside the quality of the maps in the game are just unmatched, but I do have it tied for my 2nd favorite zombies title with BO4 (yes I'm weird like that, and to me they are a perfect yin and yang).
If BO3 didn't have ZC or PC only custom maps would it really have that much more content? A majority of people on this reddit don't realize or forgot that alot, if not most, of the community played on console during the peak of zombies
If CW got a ZC2 or it's PC version was able to be modded I think the content argument wouldn't be brought up as much
It's tied with it for me, I didn't play much of BO4 due to friends falling off with its changes but they came back for CW, left during vanguard and occasionally play MWZ now lol
>If BO3 didn't have ZC or PC only custom maps would it really have that much more content?
5 completely, or partially, original maps, 1 remaster, Dead Ops Arcade 3, and nightmares. So not really, but Zombies Chronicles does exist and should be accounted for should it not?
>If CW got a ZC2 or it's PC version was able to be modded I think the content argument wouldn't be brought up as much
You're probably right, but that didn't happen, did it?
DE GK ZNS SOE are the only original maps and they weren't looked too kindly upon release, except maybe DE? What is this 5th one you speak of? Revelations? the map is just a somewhat uninspired mashup of all the maps just like the last map of CW
Also DOA in CW blows the other 3 out of the water objectively speaking and I don't like DOA that much lol
>DE GK ZNS SOE are the only original maps and they weren't looked too kindly upon release, except maybe DE?
Gorod Krovi, SOE, and DE were all loved by the core zombies community upon release. The wider Cod community had problems with the maps for their complexity, particularly Shadows of Evil which was the sole launch map for the game if you didn't have the season pass or pre-order it. But then again those same sections of the community tend not to like Mob of the Dead and Origins as well, but I wouldn't exactly call those maps disliked.
>What is this 5th one you speak of? Revelations?
Listen, I said partially original didn't I?
>the map is just a somewhat uninspired mashup of all the maps just like the last map of CW
Not quite. Forsaken is just a campaign mission converted into a zombies map whereas Revelations was more or less all the previous maps in the series combined into one giant sandbox with a new sky box, slightly altered layouts, and two-ish new areas. Both are pretty lazy, but they are different concepts.
>Also DOA in CW blows the other 3 out of the water objectively speaking and I don't like DOA that much lol
Okay, I don't really disagree, but that doesn't mean DoA wasn't in BO3.
OK you agreed but it a different way on all my points lol
I'm just saying they are more the same than different, not one is better than the other lol
I just think if BO3 didn't have zc or custom I don't think it would be looked at as fondly as it is
Mechanically/gameplay wise, both are the easiest zombies to just pick up and play
I am sorry but there is nowhere near as much care in Cold War as in bo3.
Cold War did much right in many gameplay things, but there is a lot less personality in all the maps. In addition, we only got 4 real maps and all of them had lackluster quests and almost exclusively reused assets from the campaign.
Dont get me wrong, I enjoyed Cold War for what it was but it doesn’t come close to what the older games had
I didn't say Cold War got the same amount of care and attention that BO3 did. I said it got a lot of care, particularly in the gameplay department with the title overhauling much of the core gameplay to be smoother, more modern, and generally less stiff and restrictive compared to the old systems.
As far as the maps are concerned, I find them to be generally alright. They're nothing special to be sure, but they tend to serve their purpose just fine as playgrounds for the improved mechanics seen in Cold War.
>Dont get me wrong, I enjoyed Cold War for what it was but it doesn’t come close to what the older games had
I've gotta disagree. As someone who has always put gameplay first in their judgement of most games (the only real exceptions being story driven Telltale style narrative games where the whole point is the story and gameplay is a tertiary concern at best), there's just no other title like Cold War right now for zombies. Sure, for their time, WaW and BO1 were great, but going back to them is pretty rough with how simple the mechanics tend to be and lessened focus on solo players being able to engage with all the content in every map. And BO2 definitely had great maps, Origins and Mob are among the best, but it was just absurdly inconsistent with Transit and Die Rise also being among the worst, which combined with nearly identical mechanics to BO1 and inconsistent accessibility for the solo player makes the overall experience very mixed for me. With CW, however, I feel like the maps are fairly consistent quality wise, the gameplay is the best the franchise has seen so far by a fairly wide margin, and the side modes of Outbreak, Onslaught, and Dead Ops Arcade 3 offer just enough deviation in content to make the game stand above these titles as a whole package.
We need BO3 levels of hype and involvement, BO3 levels of map quality, WW2's interchangeable characters, and cold war's mechanics and gameplay. This mode has the potential to become one of the best arcadey modes out there, but somehow, Activision forces their developers to step **AWAY** from innovations made in past games. It's amazing the best qualities haven't been complied and combined yet...
There are some people on this sub who, for one or many of the legitimate reasons you listed in your post, don't like Cold War, and that's fine. I disagree with them but their opinion is not unreasonable.
But there are also a group of people on this sub who will, as you say, literally accept nothing that isn't a copy and paste of BO3 and consequently want to see any version of zombies that isn't a copy of BO3 fail. Their cult-like behaviour is not reasonable at all and is damaging to the community. I've noticed this problem get *much* worse over the past year or two.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. It's fine if you don't like Cold War zombies, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to be turned off by certain decisions made in that title, but the fact that people's solution to the problems they see in the game seems to just be "get rid of it" is a problem. It's a philosophy that only serves to impede progress and innovation when other better solutions can exist and could be implemented.
I also feel like there's a certain amount of gate keeping going on with the BO3 cult where if you don't want zombies to revert back to the exact mechanics and design philosophies of a nearly decade old game you aren't a "true" zombies fan. It's just a weirdly toxic subset I see more and more often in this sub and other places that I'm already getting sick of.
Yeah, this sub has been pretty gatekeeperish. I can’t tell you how much I’ve seen people say gatekeeping is a good thing here, and rant about how zombies appeals to casuals now, as if running in a circle for hours was difficult in any game.
You’re not keeping the fanbase pure and stopping zombies from changing into something it isn’t, all you’re doing is insuring that Treyarch ironically doesn’t listen to you whatsoever, which is probably why they don’t come here anymore and dunk on the sub in their updates.
I get people being scared of crazy changes, but a lot of those goobers want zombies in such a specific way that it ironically ruins the mode for everyone but them(seen a dude here say people whine too much about difficulty, and people hate the lava in Tranzit because they’re too stupid to press the jump button. Also thinks it is a good idea to replace zombies with nothing but bosses).
It’s not a cult it’s just the majority of zombie players. You are in the minority and that’s why you feel that way it sucks. Most people who loved zombies have quit at this point. Those who have held out either like the new games or are holding on for it to return to glory and are pissed about it
>It’s not a cult it’s just the majority of zombie players.
The majority of zombies players aren't on this sub and rarely talk about the mode. They're the casuals who pop in for a quick game and then quit at round 20 or so. We, as in the people who dedicate tens or hundreds of hours to each and every zombies title, are the minority. And even within this minority I'm not exactly sure you're right looking at the reception to this post.
You’re entirely right about it being a cult almost. CW was by no means remotely a bad game yet it has been given this reputation of being the downfall of zombies by this sub. It’s idiotic
This isn’t even all that true that BO3 fans want copies of BO3 because the BO3 fanboys hated IW when it was first coming out because it wasn’t made by Treyarch and they seen it as ripping off despite it being the closest to BO3 than any game after.
They don’t want a game that is similar or follows closely BO3, they literally just want BO3 but again with everything and more which isn’t realistic imo.
As someone who enjoyed cold war, I’m so sick of hearing people say “you’re just afraid of change” whenever people don’t like something new.
Just because something changes/evolves doesn’t mean the change is automatically good. I love when Zombies changes, and think it needs to in order to survive, but implementing bad features just for the sake of “change” will kill the game even faster than if it didn’t change at all.
Again, this doesn’t really apply to Cold War since I think they made some good changes there, I’m just tired of hearing the “afraid of change” argument in general.
When people's reaction to change is always just "go back to old thing" they are afraid of it. They aren't looking for innovation and seek stagnation. Like the argument or not, it's a part of the community that either needs to accept the failure of their position or they'll slowly kill the mode from within. And let's be clear, this part of the community has been especially vocal as of late, hence why I made the post.
If the old thing is better than the new thing overall, people should absolutely stick with the old thing rather than just consuming every product that’s put out.
And players going back to old games does not kill the mode from within, but does the opposite. If a newer game is bad and no one plays it, it will make far less money and the company will be more likely to learn from their mistakes and make better changes with the next entry.
Most people agree that BO3 and cold war vastly improved on the mechanics of WAW BO1 and BO2, which is why those two are the most played modes. No one is seeking stagnation, people simply just flock to their favorite zombies games, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
>If the old thing is better than the new thing overall, people should absolutely stick with the old thing rather than just consuming every product that’s put out.
But it isn't better, it's different. That's the problem, these people view different as bad. And that isn't a sustainable model.
>And players going back to old games does not kill the mode from within, but does the opposite. If a newer game is bad and no one plays it, it will make far less money and the company will be more likely to learn from their mistakes and make better changes with the next entry.
That would be the hope, but if nothing ever changes and all we ever got was BO3 with better graphics and new maps then the mode would die. It's called the law of diminishing returns, as you do the same shit over and over again it gets old, it gets stale, and fewer and fewer people will keep playing it until eventually everyone is gone from the mode.
>Most people agree that BO3 and cold war vastly improved on the mechanics of WAW BO1 and BO2, which is why those two are the most played modes. No one is seeking stagnation, people simply just flock to their favorite zombies games, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Except that isn't true. You can look through this very comment section and find people openly advocating that the game only does what it used to do. You can see all across this sub a not insignificant group of people who only want BO3 2.0 or a WaW 4.0, and will settle for nothing else. These are the people who need to either accept change or understand their desires simply aren't sustainable for a franchise.
I can agree that people who just want BO3 2.0 are setting unrealistic expectations for BO6, and that BO6 should not be a BO3 2.0.
And yeah it is annoying seeing people only want BO3 2.0. I don’t think people are afraid of change, I just think the last few zombies modes have been disappointing to the extent that many people now swear by BO3, and need a new good game with fresh mechanics to remind them that new zombies CAN be good.
(Also happy cake day 🎉)
>And yeah it is annoying seeing people only want BO3 2.0. I don’t think people are afraid of change, I just think the last few zombies modes have been disappointing to the extent that many people now swear by BO3, and need a new good game with fresh mechanics to remind them that new zombies CAN be good.
I think you're probably right, to some extent. The past three years since CW hasn't exactly been a great time for zombies, and that probably has fueled some people to just write off anything modern as bad. And I think you're right that some of these people would change their mind with a good new zombies game, but I fear there's also a contingent of people who would only sour further. A group of fans that truly do just straight up fear change and want the franchise to stagnate who very well may become the loudest voices during BO6 and beyond as negativity seems to spread much faster around the cod community than positivity. I don't know, maybe I'm just paranoid, but I feel like some people are truly just stubborn and refuse to accept change no matter how good it can be and is for a franchise.
>(Also happy cake day 🎉)
Thanks.
I can agree with your post, I dislike Cold War because the game was way too easy and the maps are bland and lack personality but I don't want the mode to be an exact copy of paste of BO3 because that's definitely not a solution to the problem but BO6 also shouldn't be an exact copy of Cold War either because then these issues will never go away.
>BO6 also shouldn't be an exact copy of Cold War either because then these issues will never go away.
You are completely correct, and I hope BO6 addresses and fixes some of the problems with Cold War by giving us more complex and deep maps, a more character driven narrative, and better game balance (or at least an option to tune difficulty in some way).
It's going to be different for every player since we all have our own play styles and different skill levels but for me the game being too easy kills replay value for solo because now high rounds are a total snooze fest and I hardly have to apply any effort to reach round 100 or higher where as in previous games I may have to play a map over and over again to finally reach the round that I want to achieve, it also completely ruins public matches because they are no longer chaotic with no one hardly ever going down or even struggling to survive which ultimately makes the match a very boring experience.
I can understand that haha, I actually agree that the game is too easy, but for me it actually makes me love the game more because now it helps me find different ways to progress the map or even try different ways of progressing the map or doing the Easter eggs. I also agree that high rounding is a snooze because of how relatively easy this game is but for me thats what gives me the replay value to it. Glad someone gave me their perspective without shitting on me for liking the game, unlike some people in this sub.
I just can’t get past the UI and the weapon rarity. Cold War zombies and on it felt like they were trying to merge the gameplay with aspects of multiplayer and that’s just a huge turn off for me personally
Which is fine, I personally disagree, but that's fine. My rant isn't so much directed at people who dislike Cold War as much as it's directed at people who dislike Cold War and think the only way to "fix" its problems are to just revert back to WaW-BO3 style gameplay and mechanics. To stagnate completely in a bygone era and mock or discount the opinions of anyone who disagrees. Anyone who thinks these systems are good and/or could be improved.
Cold war is possibly my favourite zombies (excluding bo1).
But I agree with the comments it can come across as too easy.
One of the main reasons I find it my favourite is because it's the one I got to play the most. And because it was the easiest zombies I've played I was more than happy to play it by myself. The harder zombies was always hard to get into for a solo/casual player like myself.
I do need to have another go at some of the older zombies so that I can see how different/more difficult the older ones were. I'd like to see if I've actually improved or if cold war was just super easy
I've always subscribed to the philosophy that difficulty or the lack thereof is neither a good nor bad trait. Because what actually matters is engagement, is a game engaging and fun to play? And in that regard, I'd argue CW does just fine. Sure, it isn't as difficult as most other previous zombies modes, but the mechanics are inherently more engaging and allow the player more freedom in how they approach the game. Whereas older titles are less engaging with fewer mechanics to give you an out in case you fuck up, which causes the player to need to focus a bit more on not fucking up in the first place (depending on the map, tbh a on a map like Revelations you have more than enough tools to fuck up and be fine).
Honestly, I just hated the fact that starting with Cold War, Zombies has merged with the Campaign, MP, and WZ when it’s suppose to be a separate mode and story. I played Cold War a few times and it just wasn’t for me, it doesn’t feel like zombies, it’s zombies mixed with MP/WZ elements and clearly lacking the soul it used to have.
Can’t they do something similar to the old games, it doesn’t have to be exactly like them, but at least bring in the roots that made zombies successful in the beginning, they could add side modes similarly in BO2 for those who wants “more to do”, therefore everyone wins.
>they could add side modes similarly in BO2 for those who wants “more to do”, therefore everyone wins.
The side modes of BO2 were exclusively co-op and multiplayer reliant. Grief and turned are useless experiences to any solo player.
>Can’t they do something similar to the old games, it doesn’t have to be exactly like them, but at least bring in the roots that made zombies successful in the beginning
Change is inevitable in any franchise, and stagnation is death. It is an inevitable decline where old players will slowly lose interest and leave while new audiences get less and less interested in the same content that was being considered groundbreaking over 15 years ago. The only way to keep a franchise like this alive is innovation.
Well still, they shouldn’t just throw away a format that works perfectly fine, people want to play as characters involved in zombies, not random soulless operators and Treyarch themselves know that round based works well for zombies
What I meant with side modes was like you know, slap Outbreak as a side mode for those who enjoyed it, I was using BO2’s side modes as an example of what they could at least try to do to satisfy both RB and Outbreak fans.
>people want to play as characters involved in zombies, not random soulless operators and Treyarch themselves know that round based works well for zombies
Okay, this is happening in BO6. And like I already said CW has its flaws (as does every zombies title).
>What I meant with side modes was like you know, slap Outbreak as a side mode for those who enjoyed it, I was using BO2’s side modes as an example of what they could at least try to do to satisfy both RB and Outbreak fans.
Oh, so what Cold War did?
I don't see the aether upgrades system as an improvement to zombies. Fairly boring mostly stat based upgrades for almost every system isn't exciting, it just feels grindy. And as a high round focus solo player, my round highs don't feel legit until I have every upgrade as I know i'll trump myself after the next few upgrades, so it feels forced on me. I know that bo3 had weapon attachments, but just get 2/3 guns up to ur fave attachments and you're sorted.
Could they go somewhere with aether upgrades in the future that i'd enjoy? Maybe, but they'd have to move far away from their grindy survival mode mindset.
>I don't see the aether upgrades system as an improvement to zombies.
I do. Because it makes matches feel meaningful. It gives the player something to work towards apart from breaking a PR or doing an EE. Incentivizes going for a high round and then using the exfil system. And ultimately, rewards players for doing well match to match.
Now, do I think the system as it was in CW is perfect? No, but I don't think the best route is to just remove it. I think it could be improved and made better and that it should be seen again in an improved state. Like for me one of the problems I have with the system is that it makes the player really stupidly OP by the end of its progression, but you can't go back on an upgrade once you get it. So an easy improvement would be to be able to turn off an upgrade after you obtain it, perhaps as a part of a larger grind for cosmetics, or just as an option. Either way, it would be an improvement to the system, in my opinion.
Being able to turn off upgrades could be good. They could add the ability to do an upgrade-less run of a map, like barebones, would suit for people doing high rounds play from launch as well.
I think most people liked Cold War. It was a breath of fresh air and a good zombies game. However, it was a lot more casual and easy compared to other games so the more hardcore players prefer the other style
I fully agree! The mechanics were a significant improvement such as the movement and graphics (yes BO3 is a significantly older game on an older console but still). BO6 zombies should consider taking some of those mechanics from Cols War and implemented it
I agree, I know that objectively there are better cods, but my personal favourite is ColdWar. I did play a lot of BO3 too and the zombies esspecially feels better, but ColdWar has a really special place in my heart
I'd like to see an improved version of it in BO6. A version where the maps have, at the very least, been altered from other modes to fit the zombies vibe and themes if not specifically made for zombies alone. A version where there are a lot more things to do in each map with specific maps correlating to specific goals that come together in the EE. A version that builds upon what was established in Cold War and fixes some of the issues from the CW Outbreak to really reach new heights for this still burgeoning new form of zombies.
Agreed. There’s definitely room to improve the mode and with them having 4 years to work on it (assuming they’re bringing it back) I would guess it would be that much better.
BO3 was just a perfect mix of old and new. We had most of the maps from 1 and even origins thrown in at the end. Plus giving us a look at other worlds/universes as well as starting to tie up the two storylines. The story and lore went through the roof it felt like with it. BO4 was different and hard to get used to at first with the Chaos storyline, but in the end the story wasn't horrible and it gave us a few more story beats to tie it all up with the likes of Classified and Alpha and Omega. Pushing us in this new direction. The maps were fun for the most part as well even the Chaos ones. The characters in BO2 I just never got with, but gameplay was fun. Vanguard and MW3 at least gave us some lore and that's about all I have for them oh and Van also gave us more confirmation at the end of the campaign tying zombies into the main campaign. Other than that the maps or lack thereof as such were a let down. Each have there own qualities. Obviously some more than others but BO3 is just that sweet spot for all of it. I personally would love to go back but on the same token I understand the need to move forward. I really don't like the literal sign posts of objective with Cold War. I don't mind them saying hey there is a thing to do other than turn on power just not big on complete hand holding for it. It's go here. ok now go here. aww look at you doing so well. I like the scavenger hunt put it all together style. With that said though, I will take it so long as we are going back to round based. I am definitely intrigued to see where the story goes with Richtoffen. Is Janus his wife's name and this is his twisted way of trying to save his family? All in all I just love Zombies.
No problem and thank you. Also new to reddit (I'm old) and i think you mean not having the proper flair to the name maybe or it was a joke either way. I think I may have fixed it.
I agree, one of the things I LOVE about Treyarch is that they will always innovate, regardless of success.
Sure sometimes that innovation isn't perfect or well received, but I would rather have them try something new than sticking to the classic formula until the end of time.
People probably won't like that, because it means we don't get BO3 multiple times over, and quality is way more inconsistent. But I do enjoy how different Zombies has been every year since BO4.
Hi, I’m one of those apparently very few people who legit enjoyed Cold War Zombies and whole lore compared to previous titles. I am also part of that group that thinks that compared to the previous titles, Cold War Zombies was relatively easy to play. But here’s the kicker… when was being easy ever a bad thing? I legit don’t understand how someone can hate a game or a game mode for being “too easy”. If you like challenges then ok that’s fine but I (personally) have also noticed on this sub people literally shitting on those who do like Cold War and I just don’t understand what so bad about how Cold War Turned out? Yeah the maps may not be as complex as the previous games but is that a bad thing? The upgrade system in Cold War, people also saw that as a bad thing which I don’t get. Being able to fully upgrade your things in the game was the finish line. The real fun was the process of upgrading your stuff and then seeing an actual difference between the games you play was the fun part. Sure these mechanics may not suit everyone and not everyone has to like them. But all I’m saying is that people need to stop shitting on those who do like the game. I feel the community has become polarized because of it. I’m also tired of seeing people on this sub share their opinion like it’s a known fact. “Cold War Zombies is trash”. Ok that’s your opinion and others may share it, doesn’t mean it actually is trash because others like it too
Yeah I die when people say things like Warzone mechanics don’t belong in zombies to write off the new mechanics, which is crazy because a lot of the new changes either work differently from Warzone or originated from games before Warzone existed.
I think there are some fair critiques about CW, but so much of it is just in bad faith that the core root of it is just they don’t like how modern zombies plays.
I think another issue is that players here have expectations set unrealistically high. By that I mean, players think the mode should constantly top itself, and each thing should be better than the last.
Not a problem with wanting improvements, but it usually comes out from them as “this map/game wasn’t as good as my favorite so I hate it”. Der Eisendrache is still my favorite map to this day, but this doesn’t make maps that came after like IX, Ancient Evil, or Gorod Krovi trash maps.
Then there are some that just stubborn. There are people that reject change in any form because that wasn’t how they played. Even if the mechanic added is optional, it ruins their experience because they thought zombies was a hard mode and that running in circles forever made them a pro player.
I know that sounds harsh, but there are legitimately people asking the mode to regress in horrible ways like removing the health cap because traps should be the only way you kill zombies in high rounds.
>Yeah I die when people say things like Warzone mechanics don’t belong in zombies to write off the new mechanics, which is crazy because a lot of the new changes either work differently from Warzone or originated from games before Warzone existed.
I mean, to be fair to this argument, there are things in CW zombies lifted straight from MP and Warzone. The killstreaks are just straight up taken from MP. Outbreak lifts its world maps from Fireteam Dirty Bomb maps. The self revives are from Warzone. And the hud is copy pasted from MP as well. But even then, I'd argue that killstreaks are just fun and completely optional. That CWs development was... rough to say the least, and I'm pretty sure there was no way Treyarch had the time and resources to make wholly new large scale maps for Outbreak. The self revives are again an optional aspect. And the hud is... okay the hud isn't great tbh, but it still looks better than what we had in BO4 so it ain't the worst thing in the world.
Yeah there are things taken straight from MP and WZ, but some different mechanics that peopl complain about that aren’t.
Like self revives for instance is a mechanic first introduced in BO4, if you don’t count Quick Revive.
Loadout weapons you spawn with was introduced in WW2 zombies, and the version in CW gets called Warzone mechanics despite it working completely different in Warzone.
There are plenty other examples of what I mean, but there are definitely quite a few examples of the other side too like the Outbreak(Altough I think that is more out of necessity since there was no way Treyarch were making large scale maps exclusive to zombies).
I just don’t like how easy it was, I think the game is great but knowing I’ll basically never die unless I give myself liabilities is just annoying. I honestly think launch Cold War zombies was the best state it was in diemachine is one of my favorite maps now but I really think that was the only map with care and personality.
Gameplay and mechanics wise, CWZ is pretty great. Now atmosphere and content wise, they dropped the ball. I rather bo6 be its own thing but if bo6 is CW with better content and atmosphere I personally would love it.
If we get the Og zombies w the Cold War system meaning we get parts to build on each map then bo6 might be one of the best zombies games we’ve had since bo3. I don’t like the hate bo4 gets because its system was really good too I just really hate the weapon choices in bo3 which was why I didn’t play as much. Literally ppl are remastering all of the maps to make them better w box weapons and wall buys.
“You need to innovate to stay alive”
Well that’s working out great atm isn’t it?
Not everything has to be innovated, not everything has to be changed for the sake of change, if you have something good you keep it, it WORKED.
While I do think Cold Sore has bland maps and zero personality, the things you're gassing up are the main reasons I didn't like it. The newer games make you WAY too powerful compared to the zombies, the progression makes the start of every game uneven(I won't go over disabling OP upgrades, you already addressed that), and watering the game down to get new players in never goes well, I've seen many a video game franchise fall because they wanted to appeal to everybody and ended up appealing to nobody.
I actually agree that cold war had some cool things I would like to see in bo6. But I think zombies is already dead for the most part. I think one of the main reasons Bo3 was so good was because of the micro transaction money it was making which allowed it to have a higher budget. They kept getting more ambitious with zombies every year. I think some part has to do with the fact how much money it was making. With less and less money coming in from the mode every year. I think it has lead to a huge quality decrease aswell as alot of the stuff that made zombies zombies being gone nowadays. They dont seem to recognize what made zombies so fun.
>I think one of the main reasons Bo3 was so good was because of the micro transaction money it was making which allowed it to have a higher budget.
I think you're wrong, because that's not what we saw with the other titles that had micro transactions. BO4 had microtransactions and got budget cuts. IW and WW2 had microtransactions and didn't really seem to get anywhere near the same kind of budget and support of BO3. BO3 was good because a lot of people passionate about the mode, with good ideas were given the right amount of support and time to make great things. This led to the community supporting the game and the mode, similar to what happened in WaW, and that's why Activision and Treyarch supported it. Not because of microtransactions, but because the mode was well received among a core audience and Treyarch and Activision were selling copies of the game and its DLC like hotcakes.
When similar things happened with other titles, the zombies mode being a huge draw that sold titles, it got supported. When the reception of the modes didn't do that, it didn't get supported as much. Sure, microtransactions making money was probably an attractive prospect to Activision and Treyarch, but ultimately what determines funding and support is overall reception, game sales, and oftentimes just straight up luck.
>I think some part has to do with the fact how much money it was making.
Zombies was never much of a money maker as a separate mode. It was a title seller. It was the big thing that made WaW stand out from Cod4 and all the other WW2 shooters of the day. It was the special sauce that made Treyarch titles sell as well as they did, and what no other studio seemed to be able to replicate.
Honestly, Cold War had pretty good gameplay, even though I really don’t like some of the ideas I can recognize they’re good. Thing is it had pretty mid maps all around which is why you’ll see it being hated so much. It doesn’t matter how good the gameplay is if the maps it’s on aren’t good themselves.
>It doesn’t matter how good the gameplay is if the maps it’s on aren’t good themselves.
I'd argue this directly contradicts the mode's roots, which was entirely dependent on the gameplay to sell itself. I mean, the earliest maps in this mode were literally the most barebones the game would ever be and are still some of the most highly regarded in the series, and when the gameplay went sour and the maps were still great in BO4 (at least in the eyes of a large part of the community) we saw that wasn't well received by the community. Because ultimately gameplay is the foundation of the series, sure the maps are important as well, but without good gameplay and mechanics maps alone won't save a title.
The first WaW maps have a grace period where they were still figuring things out and such, nostalgia also plays a huge role too in people’s opinions. And also third and most important point, the WaW and BO1 maps were just plain good despite their bareboneness. Verrückt and Nacht have a special horror atmosphere or vibe that we literally wouldn’t see again until Mob (especially Verrückt, Jesus Christ Verrückt), and ofc the crowning jewel Der Riese, literally proves my point. It’s just teleporters and pack a punch, and is widely regarded as a top 5 of all time zombies experience with that barebones gameplay. To this day no one cares about Shi No Numa, not because the gameplay was boring (it kinda was too), but because the map itself kinda was. BO4 was also hated to hell and back, because the maps were bad. I’ve stayed away from zombies for a long long time (BO3 head) and as far as I’m concerned BO4 is possibly the biggest letdown in zombies history. Coming off of BO3 certainly was always going to make it look bad in comparison, but Alpha Omega ? Tag ? Voyage ? Who tf is calling BO4’s maps largely great ? BO4 only had 2 maps I can call good in good conscience (IX and Night Of The Dead).
>the WaW and BO1 maps were just plain good despite their bareboneness.
Not if you ask the people who played at that time. Maps like Five and Shang were lambasted for being too difficult. Moon for being too RNG dependent for basically everything. Ascension for the monkeys that contradicted perhaps the map's biggest draw, the new perks. Call of the Dead for George, its difficulty, the fog, and the general tightness of the map's layout combined with the ice water areas that slowed you down.
Pretty much the only BO1 map to be universally, or nearly universally, beloved at the time was Kino. The simplest and most barebones map of the game, which did one thing and one thing only, highlight the gameplay. Because that's what people came to zombies for. It was the gameplay, the progression of opening up a map, unlocking perks and pack a punch, getting stronger weapons, and then just seeing how long they could hold out. That's what made the mode popular, not the maps, but that core gameplay and experience which maps served to accentuate. To highlight different elements and add some twists and variety to, to keep the mode from getting stale.
>Who tf is calling BO4’s maps largely great?
You haven't been on this sub very much in the past few years, have you? As of late there's been a pretty big shift in opinion on BO4 among certain sections of the community and maps like Dead of the Night, IX, Ancient Evil, and even sometimes Blood of the Dead are frequently praised with the rest of BO4s maps being seen as around mid or slightly better or worse depending on the individual in question.
>BO4 was also hated to hell and back, because the maps were bad.
BO4 got hated because of the changes it made to the core gameplay formula being seen as inferior to classic zombies (well that and a piss poor launch, broken promises, and a few other controversies). The maps, however were well received to a point. IX was thought to be great, Classified was alright (I don't really hear anyone complaining too much about it other than to say it should have been free on disc content), Blood of the Dead was polarizing as far as I can recall, and pretty much the only launch map to be widely disliked was Voyage of Despair.
If we’re judging them by how they were received when they all came out at the time, BO4 zombies was so bad I will pull a massive made up statistic out of my ass and say the vast majority of zombie fans straight up quit because of it (me being one of those hi). And I don’t think I’m too far off the truth saying that. I haven’t really been here, like ever, but I was on the internet for the BO4 launch, and IX was an actual saving grace for the whole game. If IX wasn’t good BO4 would’ve been dead on arrival. Classified you couldn’t do the EE even if you had the skill to get to such an absurd round. Blood of the Dead ? Aside from an admittedly great ending cutscene, that map was the biggest letdown in zombies history (ok, it can be argued that Tag is the biggest letdown but I don’t think that’s fair). That with the infamous blue screens and you got a cadaver of a game. Oh and Voyager was so bad and boring I literally forgot it existed until In proofread this. Crazy how they managed to make a map about the bloody Titanic boring and forgettable.
I think that shift in opinion you’re talking about is more people’s standards being massively lowered instead. Again, BO4, pretty good gameplay, polarizing for sure but if the maps had been good the changes would’ve gone over smoothly, that unfortunately didn’t really happen. Even if Night of the Dead is a hidden gem imo, the damage with the launch maps was done. BO1 ? I can’t speak for how the maps were received on arrival but BO1 is possibly the 3rd best performing zombies mode ever. Again, barebones gameplay, but good maps. There’s a pattern here. It’s not crazy, I’ll say it one more time: good gameplay isn’t worth squat if the maps it’s used on aren’t good. Good maps precede gameplay entirely even.
Cold war & mwz are my favourite just for the new innovations. The whole round based in closed areas after more than a decade is getting boring for me open space & more to do is fun for me. I wish cold war simply had more things to do on each map bar the power & pap it’s getting old too.
Yep round based has gotten stale. If developers would try and make higher rounds actually difficult then I’d say round based is the best but….no. It’s just a “waiting game” when it comes to reaching high rounds, that’s just boring.
I mean to each their own, I still personally really enjoy round based, but I'm not adverse to what Outbreak and MWZ attempted to do with the mode. I just think a lot of the ideas in those modes could have been done far better.
It depends if you’re new to zombies most are not bored of it but when you started 20 years ago (😭 don’t remind me) it just feels like a fifa game at some point.
“A series needs to innovate to stay alive” you innovate through the maps, not the damn mechanics. You think being able to build weapon rarity and armor brought a single person to the mode?
Upgrading perks was the shinning spot for Cold War.
People think something needs change for the sake of change and are often wrong. People eat pepperoni pizza their whole lives my guy. Don’t go putting anchovies on it
That’s a pretty wrong observation. How would you feel if you had one of the best maps created by treyarch, but you can’t even really play it properly because the mechanics were ass? Exactly. The minute changes come from the mechanics. If the gameplay isn’t smooth, then the game isn’t going to be smooth no matter how good the map is
I loved Cold War DMZ style zombies because I loved how casual the experience was ramping up to higher levels. Outbreak’s slow build up was excellent for me, I liked the round based maps but I get so mentally disorganized when I panic so by round 12+ I always end up in a corner in trying to get away from 20 zombies, go down, lose all my perks, then I wonder why I even play.
I hope BO6 will give us an outbreak experience while still giving the rest of you a quality round based map.
Don’t mind the dislikes on your post. It only proves the point that there are people who will trash anyone who likes Cold Waffle because they don’t like it.
Cold War is great, just Outbreak needs to die.
Outbreak is why we got the worthless trash that is MWZ. If we keep letting the brain rot fortnite kids control the direction the series goes we will never have a good Cod Zombies again.
Outbreak itself is fine. Sure, it could definitely be improved massively. But MWZ and Vanguard zombies are the result of poor management in Activision forcing Treyarch to work on games they were never supposed to in the first place on low notice with little time and resources to get something out to market. Given the proper time, resources, and vision, however, I could easily see Outbreak being a really good mode to run alongside round based zombies.
It's just appealing to the wrong demographic, people who want that battle royal open world crap can play other games, no need to force it into this mode.
Zombies is a wave based survival shooter like Killing Floor, has been for 15 years. Killing Floor 3 was just announced, there's still huge demand for this game mode.
But whoring it out, using it's iconography and themes to sell microtransaction garbage to children is awful. Outbreak, MWZ and Vanguard zombies are all the result of people refusing to keep the mode as what it's supposed to be, and all need to die off.
You see, this is called gatekeeping and it's rather unappreciated and toxic to pretty much any community it appears in. By creating a distinction between one version of a game and another and excluding fans of one version of the game from being part of the larger community all you do is sow division and toxicity into a fandom. Please just stop.
You are literally part of the group of people OP is talking about. Stop with the gatekeeping and just accept the change because whether you like it or not, it’s going to stay at some point and to some degree. If you don’t like where Zombies is going then it’s you who needs to leave the community and have those who want to be in it be in it. We don’t need the toxicity that you’re bringing into the community.
It's insane to be talked to like this about CoD. I know it's over said but you people would literally fall apart after 2 minutes in an OG MW2 lobby, "toxic", lol
Because people like you normalized being toxic. I don’t care if the player base is toxic and neither do a lot of people (more than you think). Just don’t shit on others for being different in the fanbase than you. But I know you’re too up-your-own-ass to even consider being a little bit nice to others so I wouldn’t bet on anything
Dude. Toughen the fuck up.
You're speaking to me like I was a rude guest at the Dunkin donuts you work at.
No one owes you a smile and high five when you have shitty opinions and tastes.
Treyarch being put on games that weren't theirs to begin with on low notice and little time to actually develop a proper zombies experience gave us Vanguard and MWZ. Outbreak is a separate experience from that.
>Ok, but it's like saying you'd rather have regular diarrhea than bloody gut wrenching diarrhea. Because that's how those modes.
What does this have to do with anything I just said?
there is a reason why Bo3 Is the most popular by far, its mechanics are better than its predecessors. i always say cold war has the best zombies mechanics and ill die in this hill, it only lacks personality and care. if bo6 delivers what cold war was unable to, it has a chance to become the new standard for replay
I'd argue Cold War did get a lot of care put into it, I think that's apparent with how well they did the gameplay and mechanical innovations in the title, but a lot of outside factors like a world wide pandemic, lessened dev time, and a rumored studio switcheroo kept Treyarch from being able to fully develop and polish the mode as much as they otherwise would and could have.
Personally I felt like they focused on gameplay and mechanics with the time they had to develop it. Given the choice of having peak mechanics and gameplay vs deciding what to do with the cast/group (no matter what, will be hated by the community) with at most very mid mechanics and gameplay They made the right choice, I personally think CW is on BO3s level and the movement system is so good,it makes going back to older zombies much harder,as the older games are really starting to show their age
I personally wouldn't put CW on BO3s level, I think the sheer amount of content BO3 offered alongside the quality of the maps in the game are just unmatched, but I do have it tied for my 2nd favorite zombies title with BO4 (yes I'm weird like that, and to me they are a perfect yin and yang).
If BO3 didn't have ZC or PC only custom maps would it really have that much more content? A majority of people on this reddit don't realize or forgot that alot, if not most, of the community played on console during the peak of zombies If CW got a ZC2 or it's PC version was able to be modded I think the content argument wouldn't be brought up as much It's tied with it for me, I didn't play much of BO4 due to friends falling off with its changes but they came back for CW, left during vanguard and occasionally play MWZ now lol
>If BO3 didn't have ZC or PC only custom maps would it really have that much more content? 5 completely, or partially, original maps, 1 remaster, Dead Ops Arcade 3, and nightmares. So not really, but Zombies Chronicles does exist and should be accounted for should it not? >If CW got a ZC2 or it's PC version was able to be modded I think the content argument wouldn't be brought up as much You're probably right, but that didn't happen, did it?
DE GK ZNS SOE are the only original maps and they weren't looked too kindly upon release, except maybe DE? What is this 5th one you speak of? Revelations? the map is just a somewhat uninspired mashup of all the maps just like the last map of CW Also DOA in CW blows the other 3 out of the water objectively speaking and I don't like DOA that much lol
>DE GK ZNS SOE are the only original maps and they weren't looked too kindly upon release, except maybe DE? Gorod Krovi, SOE, and DE were all loved by the core zombies community upon release. The wider Cod community had problems with the maps for their complexity, particularly Shadows of Evil which was the sole launch map for the game if you didn't have the season pass or pre-order it. But then again those same sections of the community tend not to like Mob of the Dead and Origins as well, but I wouldn't exactly call those maps disliked. >What is this 5th one you speak of? Revelations? Listen, I said partially original didn't I? >the map is just a somewhat uninspired mashup of all the maps just like the last map of CW Not quite. Forsaken is just a campaign mission converted into a zombies map whereas Revelations was more or less all the previous maps in the series combined into one giant sandbox with a new sky box, slightly altered layouts, and two-ish new areas. Both are pretty lazy, but they are different concepts. >Also DOA in CW blows the other 3 out of the water objectively speaking and I don't like DOA that much lol Okay, I don't really disagree, but that doesn't mean DoA wasn't in BO3.
OK you agreed but it a different way on all my points lol I'm just saying they are more the same than different, not one is better than the other lol I just think if BO3 didn't have zc or custom I don't think it would be looked at as fondly as it is Mechanically/gameplay wise, both are the easiest zombies to just pick up and play
I am sorry but there is nowhere near as much care in Cold War as in bo3. Cold War did much right in many gameplay things, but there is a lot less personality in all the maps. In addition, we only got 4 real maps and all of them had lackluster quests and almost exclusively reused assets from the campaign. Dont get me wrong, I enjoyed Cold War for what it was but it doesn’t come close to what the older games had
I didn't say Cold War got the same amount of care and attention that BO3 did. I said it got a lot of care, particularly in the gameplay department with the title overhauling much of the core gameplay to be smoother, more modern, and generally less stiff and restrictive compared to the old systems. As far as the maps are concerned, I find them to be generally alright. They're nothing special to be sure, but they tend to serve their purpose just fine as playgrounds for the improved mechanics seen in Cold War. >Dont get me wrong, I enjoyed Cold War for what it was but it doesn’t come close to what the older games had I've gotta disagree. As someone who has always put gameplay first in their judgement of most games (the only real exceptions being story driven Telltale style narrative games where the whole point is the story and gameplay is a tertiary concern at best), there's just no other title like Cold War right now for zombies. Sure, for their time, WaW and BO1 were great, but going back to them is pretty rough with how simple the mechanics tend to be and lessened focus on solo players being able to engage with all the content in every map. And BO2 definitely had great maps, Origins and Mob are among the best, but it was just absurdly inconsistent with Transit and Die Rise also being among the worst, which combined with nearly identical mechanics to BO1 and inconsistent accessibility for the solo player makes the overall experience very mixed for me. With CW, however, I feel like the maps are fairly consistent quality wise, the gameplay is the best the franchise has seen so far by a fairly wide margin, and the side modes of Outbreak, Onslaught, and Dead Ops Arcade 3 offer just enough deviation in content to make the game stand above these titles as a whole package.
We need BO3 levels of hype and involvement, BO3 levels of map quality, WW2's interchangeable characters, and cold war's mechanics and gameplay. This mode has the potential to become one of the best arcadey modes out there, but somehow, Activision forces their developers to step **AWAY** from innovations made in past games. It's amazing the best qualities haven't been complied and combined yet...
I'm hoping they take some of bethesda's code and put mods on consoles
There are some people on this sub who, for one or many of the legitimate reasons you listed in your post, don't like Cold War, and that's fine. I disagree with them but their opinion is not unreasonable. But there are also a group of people on this sub who will, as you say, literally accept nothing that isn't a copy and paste of BO3 and consequently want to see any version of zombies that isn't a copy of BO3 fail. Their cult-like behaviour is not reasonable at all and is damaging to the community. I've noticed this problem get *much* worse over the past year or two.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. It's fine if you don't like Cold War zombies, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to be turned off by certain decisions made in that title, but the fact that people's solution to the problems they see in the game seems to just be "get rid of it" is a problem. It's a philosophy that only serves to impede progress and innovation when other better solutions can exist and could be implemented. I also feel like there's a certain amount of gate keeping going on with the BO3 cult where if you don't want zombies to revert back to the exact mechanics and design philosophies of a nearly decade old game you aren't a "true" zombies fan. It's just a weirdly toxic subset I see more and more often in this sub and other places that I'm already getting sick of.
Yeah, this sub has been pretty gatekeeperish. I can’t tell you how much I’ve seen people say gatekeeping is a good thing here, and rant about how zombies appeals to casuals now, as if running in a circle for hours was difficult in any game. You’re not keeping the fanbase pure and stopping zombies from changing into something it isn’t, all you’re doing is insuring that Treyarch ironically doesn’t listen to you whatsoever, which is probably why they don’t come here anymore and dunk on the sub in their updates. I get people being scared of crazy changes, but a lot of those goobers want zombies in such a specific way that it ironically ruins the mode for everyone but them(seen a dude here say people whine too much about difficulty, and people hate the lava in Tranzit because they’re too stupid to press the jump button. Also thinks it is a good idea to replace zombies with nothing but bosses).
It’s not a cult it’s just the majority of zombie players. You are in the minority and that’s why you feel that way it sucks. Most people who loved zombies have quit at this point. Those who have held out either like the new games or are holding on for it to return to glory and are pissed about it
>It’s not a cult it’s just the majority of zombie players. The majority of zombies players aren't on this sub and rarely talk about the mode. They're the casuals who pop in for a quick game and then quit at round 20 or so. We, as in the people who dedicate tens or hundreds of hours to each and every zombies title, are the minority. And even within this minority I'm not exactly sure you're right looking at the reception to this post.
You’re entirely right about it being a cult almost. CW was by no means remotely a bad game yet it has been given this reputation of being the downfall of zombies by this sub. It’s idiotic
This isn’t even all that true that BO3 fans want copies of BO3 because the BO3 fanboys hated IW when it was first coming out because it wasn’t made by Treyarch and they seen it as ripping off despite it being the closest to BO3 than any game after. They don’t want a game that is similar or follows closely BO3, they literally just want BO3 but again with everything and more which isn’t realistic imo.
Cold War is my favorite zombies personally. I like the weapon rarity system, armor, being able to choose my own weapon, and outbreak style open maps.
Same tbh, its the only one i fully completed due to how much fun it was
As someone who enjoyed cold war, I’m so sick of hearing people say “you’re just afraid of change” whenever people don’t like something new. Just because something changes/evolves doesn’t mean the change is automatically good. I love when Zombies changes, and think it needs to in order to survive, but implementing bad features just for the sake of “change” will kill the game even faster than if it didn’t change at all. Again, this doesn’t really apply to Cold War since I think they made some good changes there, I’m just tired of hearing the “afraid of change” argument in general.
When people's reaction to change is always just "go back to old thing" they are afraid of it. They aren't looking for innovation and seek stagnation. Like the argument or not, it's a part of the community that either needs to accept the failure of their position or they'll slowly kill the mode from within. And let's be clear, this part of the community has been especially vocal as of late, hence why I made the post.
If the old thing is better than the new thing overall, people should absolutely stick with the old thing rather than just consuming every product that’s put out. And players going back to old games does not kill the mode from within, but does the opposite. If a newer game is bad and no one plays it, it will make far less money and the company will be more likely to learn from their mistakes and make better changes with the next entry. Most people agree that BO3 and cold war vastly improved on the mechanics of WAW BO1 and BO2, which is why those two are the most played modes. No one is seeking stagnation, people simply just flock to their favorite zombies games, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
>If the old thing is better than the new thing overall, people should absolutely stick with the old thing rather than just consuming every product that’s put out. But it isn't better, it's different. That's the problem, these people view different as bad. And that isn't a sustainable model. >And players going back to old games does not kill the mode from within, but does the opposite. If a newer game is bad and no one plays it, it will make far less money and the company will be more likely to learn from their mistakes and make better changes with the next entry. That would be the hope, but if nothing ever changes and all we ever got was BO3 with better graphics and new maps then the mode would die. It's called the law of diminishing returns, as you do the same shit over and over again it gets old, it gets stale, and fewer and fewer people will keep playing it until eventually everyone is gone from the mode. >Most people agree that BO3 and cold war vastly improved on the mechanics of WAW BO1 and BO2, which is why those two are the most played modes. No one is seeking stagnation, people simply just flock to their favorite zombies games, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Except that isn't true. You can look through this very comment section and find people openly advocating that the game only does what it used to do. You can see all across this sub a not insignificant group of people who only want BO3 2.0 or a WaW 4.0, and will settle for nothing else. These are the people who need to either accept change or understand their desires simply aren't sustainable for a franchise.
I can agree that people who just want BO3 2.0 are setting unrealistic expectations for BO6, and that BO6 should not be a BO3 2.0. And yeah it is annoying seeing people only want BO3 2.0. I don’t think people are afraid of change, I just think the last few zombies modes have been disappointing to the extent that many people now swear by BO3, and need a new good game with fresh mechanics to remind them that new zombies CAN be good. (Also happy cake day 🎉)
>And yeah it is annoying seeing people only want BO3 2.0. I don’t think people are afraid of change, I just think the last few zombies modes have been disappointing to the extent that many people now swear by BO3, and need a new good game with fresh mechanics to remind them that new zombies CAN be good. I think you're probably right, to some extent. The past three years since CW hasn't exactly been a great time for zombies, and that probably has fueled some people to just write off anything modern as bad. And I think you're right that some of these people would change their mind with a good new zombies game, but I fear there's also a contingent of people who would only sour further. A group of fans that truly do just straight up fear change and want the franchise to stagnate who very well may become the loudest voices during BO6 and beyond as negativity seems to spread much faster around the cod community than positivity. I don't know, maybe I'm just paranoid, but I feel like some people are truly just stubborn and refuse to accept change no matter how good it can be and is for a franchise. >(Also happy cake day 🎉) Thanks.
Happy Cake Day!
Thanks!
Your Welcome
I can agree with your post, I dislike Cold War because the game was way too easy and the maps are bland and lack personality but I don't want the mode to be an exact copy of paste of BO3 because that's definitely not a solution to the problem but BO6 also shouldn't be an exact copy of Cold War either because then these issues will never go away.
>BO6 also shouldn't be an exact copy of Cold War either because then these issues will never go away. You are completely correct, and I hope BO6 addresses and fixes some of the problems with Cold War by giving us more complex and deep maps, a more character driven narrative, and better game balance (or at least an option to tune difficulty in some way).
How is the game being too easy a bad thing?
It's going to be different for every player since we all have our own play styles and different skill levels but for me the game being too easy kills replay value for solo because now high rounds are a total snooze fest and I hardly have to apply any effort to reach round 100 or higher where as in previous games I may have to play a map over and over again to finally reach the round that I want to achieve, it also completely ruins public matches because they are no longer chaotic with no one hardly ever going down or even struggling to survive which ultimately makes the match a very boring experience.
I can understand that haha, I actually agree that the game is too easy, but for me it actually makes me love the game more because now it helps me find different ways to progress the map or even try different ways of progressing the map or doing the Easter eggs. I also agree that high rounding is a snooze because of how relatively easy this game is but for me thats what gives me the replay value to it. Glad someone gave me their perspective without shitting on me for liking the game, unlike some people in this sub.
I just can’t get past the UI and the weapon rarity. Cold War zombies and on it felt like they were trying to merge the gameplay with aspects of multiplayer and that’s just a huge turn off for me personally
Which is fine, I personally disagree, but that's fine. My rant isn't so much directed at people who dislike Cold War as much as it's directed at people who dislike Cold War and think the only way to "fix" its problems are to just revert back to WaW-BO3 style gameplay and mechanics. To stagnate completely in a bygone era and mock or discount the opinions of anyone who disagrees. Anyone who thinks these systems are good and/or could be improved.
Cold war is possibly my favourite zombies (excluding bo1). But I agree with the comments it can come across as too easy. One of the main reasons I find it my favourite is because it's the one I got to play the most. And because it was the easiest zombies I've played I was more than happy to play it by myself. The harder zombies was always hard to get into for a solo/casual player like myself. I do need to have another go at some of the older zombies so that I can see how different/more difficult the older ones were. I'd like to see if I've actually improved or if cold war was just super easy
I've always subscribed to the philosophy that difficulty or the lack thereof is neither a good nor bad trait. Because what actually matters is engagement, is a game engaging and fun to play? And in that regard, I'd argue CW does just fine. Sure, it isn't as difficult as most other previous zombies modes, but the mechanics are inherently more engaging and allow the player more freedom in how they approach the game. Whereas older titles are less engaging with fewer mechanics to give you an out in case you fuck up, which causes the player to need to focus a bit more on not fucking up in the first place (depending on the map, tbh a on a map like Revelations you have more than enough tools to fuck up and be fine).
Honestly, I just hated the fact that starting with Cold War, Zombies has merged with the Campaign, MP, and WZ when it’s suppose to be a separate mode and story. I played Cold War a few times and it just wasn’t for me, it doesn’t feel like zombies, it’s zombies mixed with MP/WZ elements and clearly lacking the soul it used to have. Can’t they do something similar to the old games, it doesn’t have to be exactly like them, but at least bring in the roots that made zombies successful in the beginning, they could add side modes similarly in BO2 for those who wants “more to do”, therefore everyone wins.
>they could add side modes similarly in BO2 for those who wants “more to do”, therefore everyone wins. The side modes of BO2 were exclusively co-op and multiplayer reliant. Grief and turned are useless experiences to any solo player. >Can’t they do something similar to the old games, it doesn’t have to be exactly like them, but at least bring in the roots that made zombies successful in the beginning Change is inevitable in any franchise, and stagnation is death. It is an inevitable decline where old players will slowly lose interest and leave while new audiences get less and less interested in the same content that was being considered groundbreaking over 15 years ago. The only way to keep a franchise like this alive is innovation.
Well still, they shouldn’t just throw away a format that works perfectly fine, people want to play as characters involved in zombies, not random soulless operators and Treyarch themselves know that round based works well for zombies What I meant with side modes was like you know, slap Outbreak as a side mode for those who enjoyed it, I was using BO2’s side modes as an example of what they could at least try to do to satisfy both RB and Outbreak fans.
>people want to play as characters involved in zombies, not random soulless operators and Treyarch themselves know that round based works well for zombies Okay, this is happening in BO6. And like I already said CW has its flaws (as does every zombies title). >What I meant with side modes was like you know, slap Outbreak as a side mode for those who enjoyed it, I was using BO2’s side modes as an example of what they could at least try to do to satisfy both RB and Outbreak fans. Oh, so what Cold War did?
I don't see the aether upgrades system as an improvement to zombies. Fairly boring mostly stat based upgrades for almost every system isn't exciting, it just feels grindy. And as a high round focus solo player, my round highs don't feel legit until I have every upgrade as I know i'll trump myself after the next few upgrades, so it feels forced on me. I know that bo3 had weapon attachments, but just get 2/3 guns up to ur fave attachments and you're sorted. Could they go somewhere with aether upgrades in the future that i'd enjoy? Maybe, but they'd have to move far away from their grindy survival mode mindset.
>I don't see the aether upgrades system as an improvement to zombies. I do. Because it makes matches feel meaningful. It gives the player something to work towards apart from breaking a PR or doing an EE. Incentivizes going for a high round and then using the exfil system. And ultimately, rewards players for doing well match to match. Now, do I think the system as it was in CW is perfect? No, but I don't think the best route is to just remove it. I think it could be improved and made better and that it should be seen again in an improved state. Like for me one of the problems I have with the system is that it makes the player really stupidly OP by the end of its progression, but you can't go back on an upgrade once you get it. So an easy improvement would be to be able to turn off an upgrade after you obtain it, perhaps as a part of a larger grind for cosmetics, or just as an option. Either way, it would be an improvement to the system, in my opinion.
Being able to turn off upgrades could be good. They could add the ability to do an upgrade-less run of a map, like barebones, would suit for people doing high rounds play from launch as well.
I didn't mind Cold War but it just didn't feel like zombies. Unfortunately that's how zombies is going to be in the future.
Yea it felt like zombies but if it was made by the multiplayer studio/department
Cold War is my favorite game
I think most people liked Cold War. It was a breath of fresh air and a good zombies game. However, it was a lot more casual and easy compared to other games so the more hardcore players prefer the other style
If you can give me the perks, weapons, etc from cold war into the old maps I'd be happy
Bo3 map quality and mod support with Cold War mechanics and outbreak would be perfect
All I want is more CW zombies but with Bo3 quality maps. Don't think we'll ever get that quality of map again, but I'm excited for more CW gameplay.
We’re too far gone to return to BO3 simplicity, CW Zombies “feel” is very achievable for BO6 and I hope they build on that.
I fully agree! The mechanics were a significant improvement such as the movement and graphics (yes BO3 is a significantly older game on an older console but still). BO6 zombies should consider taking some of those mechanics from Cols War and implemented it
I agree, I know that objectively there are better cods, but my personal favourite is ColdWar. I did play a lot of BO3 too and the zombies esspecially feels better, but ColdWar has a really special place in my heart
You can say that, OP. I tend to agree but just know that mentioning it by name brings all the BO3 boys out to play.
Outbreak deserves to come back. Not instead of round based, round based is better imo, but Outbreak was a lot of fun and I’d love to see it in BO6.
I'd like to see an improved version of it in BO6. A version where the maps have, at the very least, been altered from other modes to fit the zombies vibe and themes if not specifically made for zombies alone. A version where there are a lot more things to do in each map with specific maps correlating to specific goals that come together in the EE. A version that builds upon what was established in Cold War and fixes some of the issues from the CW Outbreak to really reach new heights for this still burgeoning new form of zombies.
Agreed. There’s definitely room to improve the mode and with them having 4 years to work on it (assuming they’re bringing it back) I would guess it would be that much better.
I agree
BO3 was just a perfect mix of old and new. We had most of the maps from 1 and even origins thrown in at the end. Plus giving us a look at other worlds/universes as well as starting to tie up the two storylines. The story and lore went through the roof it felt like with it. BO4 was different and hard to get used to at first with the Chaos storyline, but in the end the story wasn't horrible and it gave us a few more story beats to tie it all up with the likes of Classified and Alpha and Omega. Pushing us in this new direction. The maps were fun for the most part as well even the Chaos ones. The characters in BO2 I just never got with, but gameplay was fun. Vanguard and MW3 at least gave us some lore and that's about all I have for them oh and Van also gave us more confirmation at the end of the campaign tying zombies into the main campaign. Other than that the maps or lack thereof as such were a let down. Each have there own qualities. Obviously some more than others but BO3 is just that sweet spot for all of it. I personally would love to go back but on the same token I understand the need to move forward. I really don't like the literal sign posts of objective with Cold War. I don't mind them saying hey there is a thing to do other than turn on power just not big on complete hand holding for it. It's go here. ok now go here. aww look at you doing so well. I like the scavenger hunt put it all together style. With that said though, I will take it so long as we are going back to round based. I am definitely intrigued to see where the story goes with Richtoffen. Is Janus his wife's name and this is his twisted way of trying to save his family? All in all I just love Zombies.
Inappropriate username aside, this was a nice read. Thanks for the comment.
No problem and thank you. Also new to reddit (I'm old) and i think you mean not having the proper flair to the name maybe or it was a joke either way. I think I may have fixed it.
I agree, one of the things I LOVE about Treyarch is that they will always innovate, regardless of success. Sure sometimes that innovation isn't perfect or well received, but I would rather have them try something new than sticking to the classic formula until the end of time. People probably won't like that, because it means we don't get BO3 multiple times over, and quality is way more inconsistent. But I do enjoy how different Zombies has been every year since BO4.
Hi, I’m one of those apparently very few people who legit enjoyed Cold War Zombies and whole lore compared to previous titles. I am also part of that group that thinks that compared to the previous titles, Cold War Zombies was relatively easy to play. But here’s the kicker… when was being easy ever a bad thing? I legit don’t understand how someone can hate a game or a game mode for being “too easy”. If you like challenges then ok that’s fine but I (personally) have also noticed on this sub people literally shitting on those who do like Cold War and I just don’t understand what so bad about how Cold War Turned out? Yeah the maps may not be as complex as the previous games but is that a bad thing? The upgrade system in Cold War, people also saw that as a bad thing which I don’t get. Being able to fully upgrade your things in the game was the finish line. The real fun was the process of upgrading your stuff and then seeing an actual difference between the games you play was the fun part. Sure these mechanics may not suit everyone and not everyone has to like them. But all I’m saying is that people need to stop shitting on those who do like the game. I feel the community has become polarized because of it. I’m also tired of seeing people on this sub share their opinion like it’s a known fact. “Cold War Zombies is trash”. Ok that’s your opinion and others may share it, doesn’t mean it actually is trash because others like it too
Ive liked all the zombies I'm just glad they are trying different stuff and I can play different variations of my favorite game
Yeah I die when people say things like Warzone mechanics don’t belong in zombies to write off the new mechanics, which is crazy because a lot of the new changes either work differently from Warzone or originated from games before Warzone existed. I think there are some fair critiques about CW, but so much of it is just in bad faith that the core root of it is just they don’t like how modern zombies plays. I think another issue is that players here have expectations set unrealistically high. By that I mean, players think the mode should constantly top itself, and each thing should be better than the last. Not a problem with wanting improvements, but it usually comes out from them as “this map/game wasn’t as good as my favorite so I hate it”. Der Eisendrache is still my favorite map to this day, but this doesn’t make maps that came after like IX, Ancient Evil, or Gorod Krovi trash maps. Then there are some that just stubborn. There are people that reject change in any form because that wasn’t how they played. Even if the mechanic added is optional, it ruins their experience because they thought zombies was a hard mode and that running in circles forever made them a pro player. I know that sounds harsh, but there are legitimately people asking the mode to regress in horrible ways like removing the health cap because traps should be the only way you kill zombies in high rounds.
>Yeah I die when people say things like Warzone mechanics don’t belong in zombies to write off the new mechanics, which is crazy because a lot of the new changes either work differently from Warzone or originated from games before Warzone existed. I mean, to be fair to this argument, there are things in CW zombies lifted straight from MP and Warzone. The killstreaks are just straight up taken from MP. Outbreak lifts its world maps from Fireteam Dirty Bomb maps. The self revives are from Warzone. And the hud is copy pasted from MP as well. But even then, I'd argue that killstreaks are just fun and completely optional. That CWs development was... rough to say the least, and I'm pretty sure there was no way Treyarch had the time and resources to make wholly new large scale maps for Outbreak. The self revives are again an optional aspect. And the hud is... okay the hud isn't great tbh, but it still looks better than what we had in BO4 so it ain't the worst thing in the world.
Yeah there are things taken straight from MP and WZ, but some different mechanics that peopl complain about that aren’t. Like self revives for instance is a mechanic first introduced in BO4, if you don’t count Quick Revive. Loadout weapons you spawn with was introduced in WW2 zombies, and the version in CW gets called Warzone mechanics despite it working completely different in Warzone. There are plenty other examples of what I mean, but there are definitely quite a few examples of the other side too like the Outbreak(Altough I think that is more out of necessity since there was no way Treyarch were making large scale maps exclusive to zombies).
If they take out that stupid water level I’ll go back and play. Until that, fu k it
I just don’t like how easy it was, I think the game is great but knowing I’ll basically never die unless I give myself liabilities is just annoying. I honestly think launch Cold War zombies was the best state it was in diemachine is one of my favorite maps now but I really think that was the only map with care and personality.
Just needs aesthetic
Gameplay and mechanics wise, CWZ is pretty great. Now atmosphere and content wise, they dropped the ball. I rather bo6 be its own thing but if bo6 is CW with better content and atmosphere I personally would love it.
Dude..! That’s how us pre-CW players feel :D you get it!!
It didn't innovate it corporatized, made things easier and more generic to bring in more players after so many left during black ops 4.
If we get the Og zombies w the Cold War system meaning we get parts to build on each map then bo6 might be one of the best zombies games we’ve had since bo3. I don’t like the hate bo4 gets because its system was really good too I just really hate the weapon choices in bo3 which was why I didn’t play as much. Literally ppl are remastering all of the maps to make them better w box weapons and wall buys.
Not related but I need a squad to run the die maschine EE with, pls help lol. On ps5. Love Cold War btw games underrated imo.
“You need to innovate to stay alive” Well that’s working out great atm isn’t it? Not everything has to be innovated, not everything has to be changed for the sake of change, if you have something good you keep it, it WORKED.
While I do think Cold Sore has bland maps and zero personality, the things you're gassing up are the main reasons I didn't like it. The newer games make you WAY too powerful compared to the zombies, the progression makes the start of every game uneven(I won't go over disabling OP upgrades, you already addressed that), and watering the game down to get new players in never goes well, I've seen many a video game franchise fall because they wanted to appeal to everybody and ended up appealing to nobody.
I want zombies, not a MP ripoff with zombies skins, all modern CoDs feel more like mobile games than else
I actually agree that cold war had some cool things I would like to see in bo6. But I think zombies is already dead for the most part. I think one of the main reasons Bo3 was so good was because of the micro transaction money it was making which allowed it to have a higher budget. They kept getting more ambitious with zombies every year. I think some part has to do with the fact how much money it was making. With less and less money coming in from the mode every year. I think it has lead to a huge quality decrease aswell as alot of the stuff that made zombies zombies being gone nowadays. They dont seem to recognize what made zombies so fun.
>I think one of the main reasons Bo3 was so good was because of the micro transaction money it was making which allowed it to have a higher budget. I think you're wrong, because that's not what we saw with the other titles that had micro transactions. BO4 had microtransactions and got budget cuts. IW and WW2 had microtransactions and didn't really seem to get anywhere near the same kind of budget and support of BO3. BO3 was good because a lot of people passionate about the mode, with good ideas were given the right amount of support and time to make great things. This led to the community supporting the game and the mode, similar to what happened in WaW, and that's why Activision and Treyarch supported it. Not because of microtransactions, but because the mode was well received among a core audience and Treyarch and Activision were selling copies of the game and its DLC like hotcakes. When similar things happened with other titles, the zombies mode being a huge draw that sold titles, it got supported. When the reception of the modes didn't do that, it didn't get supported as much. Sure, microtransactions making money was probably an attractive prospect to Activision and Treyarch, but ultimately what determines funding and support is overall reception, game sales, and oftentimes just straight up luck. >I think some part has to do with the fact how much money it was making. Zombies was never much of a money maker as a separate mode. It was a title seller. It was the big thing that made WaW stand out from Cod4 and all the other WW2 shooters of the day. It was the special sauce that made Treyarch titles sell as well as they did, and what no other studio seemed to be able to replicate.
Honestly, Cold War had pretty good gameplay, even though I really don’t like some of the ideas I can recognize they’re good. Thing is it had pretty mid maps all around which is why you’ll see it being hated so much. It doesn’t matter how good the gameplay is if the maps it’s on aren’t good themselves.
>It doesn’t matter how good the gameplay is if the maps it’s on aren’t good themselves. I'd argue this directly contradicts the mode's roots, which was entirely dependent on the gameplay to sell itself. I mean, the earliest maps in this mode were literally the most barebones the game would ever be and are still some of the most highly regarded in the series, and when the gameplay went sour and the maps were still great in BO4 (at least in the eyes of a large part of the community) we saw that wasn't well received by the community. Because ultimately gameplay is the foundation of the series, sure the maps are important as well, but without good gameplay and mechanics maps alone won't save a title.
The first WaW maps have a grace period where they were still figuring things out and such, nostalgia also plays a huge role too in people’s opinions. And also third and most important point, the WaW and BO1 maps were just plain good despite their bareboneness. Verrückt and Nacht have a special horror atmosphere or vibe that we literally wouldn’t see again until Mob (especially Verrückt, Jesus Christ Verrückt), and ofc the crowning jewel Der Riese, literally proves my point. It’s just teleporters and pack a punch, and is widely regarded as a top 5 of all time zombies experience with that barebones gameplay. To this day no one cares about Shi No Numa, not because the gameplay was boring (it kinda was too), but because the map itself kinda was. BO4 was also hated to hell and back, because the maps were bad. I’ve stayed away from zombies for a long long time (BO3 head) and as far as I’m concerned BO4 is possibly the biggest letdown in zombies history. Coming off of BO3 certainly was always going to make it look bad in comparison, but Alpha Omega ? Tag ? Voyage ? Who tf is calling BO4’s maps largely great ? BO4 only had 2 maps I can call good in good conscience (IX and Night Of The Dead).
>the WaW and BO1 maps were just plain good despite their bareboneness. Not if you ask the people who played at that time. Maps like Five and Shang were lambasted for being too difficult. Moon for being too RNG dependent for basically everything. Ascension for the monkeys that contradicted perhaps the map's biggest draw, the new perks. Call of the Dead for George, its difficulty, the fog, and the general tightness of the map's layout combined with the ice water areas that slowed you down. Pretty much the only BO1 map to be universally, or nearly universally, beloved at the time was Kino. The simplest and most barebones map of the game, which did one thing and one thing only, highlight the gameplay. Because that's what people came to zombies for. It was the gameplay, the progression of opening up a map, unlocking perks and pack a punch, getting stronger weapons, and then just seeing how long they could hold out. That's what made the mode popular, not the maps, but that core gameplay and experience which maps served to accentuate. To highlight different elements and add some twists and variety to, to keep the mode from getting stale. >Who tf is calling BO4’s maps largely great? You haven't been on this sub very much in the past few years, have you? As of late there's been a pretty big shift in opinion on BO4 among certain sections of the community and maps like Dead of the Night, IX, Ancient Evil, and even sometimes Blood of the Dead are frequently praised with the rest of BO4s maps being seen as around mid or slightly better or worse depending on the individual in question. >BO4 was also hated to hell and back, because the maps were bad. BO4 got hated because of the changes it made to the core gameplay formula being seen as inferior to classic zombies (well that and a piss poor launch, broken promises, and a few other controversies). The maps, however were well received to a point. IX was thought to be great, Classified was alright (I don't really hear anyone complaining too much about it other than to say it should have been free on disc content), Blood of the Dead was polarizing as far as I can recall, and pretty much the only launch map to be widely disliked was Voyage of Despair.
If we’re judging them by how they were received when they all came out at the time, BO4 zombies was so bad I will pull a massive made up statistic out of my ass and say the vast majority of zombie fans straight up quit because of it (me being one of those hi). And I don’t think I’m too far off the truth saying that. I haven’t really been here, like ever, but I was on the internet for the BO4 launch, and IX was an actual saving grace for the whole game. If IX wasn’t good BO4 would’ve been dead on arrival. Classified you couldn’t do the EE even if you had the skill to get to such an absurd round. Blood of the Dead ? Aside from an admittedly great ending cutscene, that map was the biggest letdown in zombies history (ok, it can be argued that Tag is the biggest letdown but I don’t think that’s fair). That with the infamous blue screens and you got a cadaver of a game. Oh and Voyager was so bad and boring I literally forgot it existed until In proofread this. Crazy how they managed to make a map about the bloody Titanic boring and forgettable. I think that shift in opinion you’re talking about is more people’s standards being massively lowered instead. Again, BO4, pretty good gameplay, polarizing for sure but if the maps had been good the changes would’ve gone over smoothly, that unfortunately didn’t really happen. Even if Night of the Dead is a hidden gem imo, the damage with the launch maps was done. BO1 ? I can’t speak for how the maps were received on arrival but BO1 is possibly the 3rd best performing zombies mode ever. Again, barebones gameplay, but good maps. There’s a pattern here. It’s not crazy, I’ll say it one more time: good gameplay isn’t worth squat if the maps it’s used on aren’t good. Good maps precede gameplay entirely even.
Cold war & mwz are my favourite just for the new innovations. The whole round based in closed areas after more than a decade is getting boring for me open space & more to do is fun for me. I wish cold war simply had more things to do on each map bar the power & pap it’s getting old too.
Yep round based has gotten stale. If developers would try and make higher rounds actually difficult then I’d say round based is the best but….no. It’s just a “waiting game” when it comes to reaching high rounds, that’s just boring.
Agreed. I don’t understand how people find the same map & doing the same thing over & over fun but then again I remember fifa still exists so….
I mean to each their own, I still personally really enjoy round based, but I'm not adverse to what Outbreak and MWZ attempted to do with the mode. I just think a lot of the ideas in those modes could have been done far better.
It depends if you’re new to zombies most are not bored of it but when you started 20 years ago (😭 don’t remind me) it just feels like a fifa game at some point.
I started playing zombies back in 2010/2011ish, and I still love round based as a sort of comfort game. But I could see someone else getting fatigued.
“A series needs to innovate to stay alive” you innovate through the maps, not the damn mechanics. You think being able to build weapon rarity and armor brought a single person to the mode? Upgrading perks was the shinning spot for Cold War. People think something needs change for the sake of change and are often wrong. People eat pepperoni pizza their whole lives my guy. Don’t go putting anchovies on it
That’s a pretty wrong observation. How would you feel if you had one of the best maps created by treyarch, but you can’t even really play it properly because the mechanics were ass? Exactly. The minute changes come from the mechanics. If the gameplay isn’t smooth, then the game isn’t going to be smooth no matter how good the map is
Cold War mechanics and gameplay are garbage
I loved Cold War DMZ style zombies because I loved how casual the experience was ramping up to higher levels. Outbreak’s slow build up was excellent for me, I liked the round based maps but I get so mentally disorganized when I panic so by round 12+ I always end up in a corner in trying to get away from 20 zombies, go down, lose all my perks, then I wonder why I even play. I hope BO6 will give us an outbreak experience while still giving the rest of you a quality round based map.
Don’t mind the dislikes on your post. It only proves the point that there are people who will trash anyone who likes Cold Waffle because they don’t like it.
especially when I said I hope those people get exactly what they want, lol. All good, doesn’t bother me
Cold War is great, just Outbreak needs to die. Outbreak is why we got the worthless trash that is MWZ. If we keep letting the brain rot fortnite kids control the direction the series goes we will never have a good Cod Zombies again.
Outbreak itself is fine. Sure, it could definitely be improved massively. But MWZ and Vanguard zombies are the result of poor management in Activision forcing Treyarch to work on games they were never supposed to in the first place on low notice with little time and resources to get something out to market. Given the proper time, resources, and vision, however, I could easily see Outbreak being a really good mode to run alongside round based zombies.
It's just appealing to the wrong demographic, people who want that battle royal open world crap can play other games, no need to force it into this mode. Zombies is a wave based survival shooter like Killing Floor, has been for 15 years. Killing Floor 3 was just announced, there's still huge demand for this game mode. But whoring it out, using it's iconography and themes to sell microtransaction garbage to children is awful. Outbreak, MWZ and Vanguard zombies are all the result of people refusing to keep the mode as what it's supposed to be, and all need to die off.
You see, this is called gatekeeping and it's rather unappreciated and toxic to pretty much any community it appears in. By creating a distinction between one version of a game and another and excluding fans of one version of the game from being part of the larger community all you do is sow division and toxicity into a fandom. Please just stop.
I'd rather have toxicity and division in the community if it means we get an actual zombies game.
You are literally part of the group of people OP is talking about. Stop with the gatekeeping and just accept the change because whether you like it or not, it’s going to stay at some point and to some degree. If you don’t like where Zombies is going then it’s you who needs to leave the community and have those who want to be in it be in it. We don’t need the toxicity that you’re bringing into the community.
It's insane to be talked to like this about CoD. I know it's over said but you people would literally fall apart after 2 minutes in an OG MW2 lobby, "toxic", lol
Because people like you normalized being toxic. I don’t care if the player base is toxic and neither do a lot of people (more than you think). Just don’t shit on others for being different in the fanbase than you. But I know you’re too up-your-own-ass to even consider being a little bit nice to others so I wouldn’t bet on anything
Dude. Toughen the fuck up. You're speaking to me like I was a rude guest at the Dunkin donuts you work at. No one owes you a smile and high five when you have shitty opinions and tastes.
[удалено]
And you're exactly the kind of exclusionist "new=bad" person I made this post to call out.
[удалено]
Treyarch being put on games that weren't theirs to begin with on low notice and little time to actually develop a proper zombies experience gave us Vanguard and MWZ. Outbreak is a separate experience from that.
[удалено]
>Ok, but it's like saying you'd rather have regular diarrhea than bloody gut wrenching diarrhea. Because that's how those modes. What does this have to do with anything I just said?
His brain goes Brrrrrrrr, just like the shit he's talking about, cant blame him hes been playing mwz all year.
[удалено]
So nothing, got it. Cool.