MaV3Rik wrote

iSerene wrote

MaV3Rik wrote

iSerene wrote

MaV3Rik wrote IMO the maps are far better. They seem to have put some thought on routes/spots/counter spots. On the subject of weapons, guns actually have recoil now. I am sorry that it is back to the old days of COD4 and Pre-COD4. On the subject of quick scoping, it is a different game. Thank God we don't have a bunch of little kids screaming "OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 360 QuIcKzSc0P3S!!!1". Quick scoping had no purpose as a game style, it was just a strategy used to possibly save your life in close range encounters.

Finally on the subject of camos, Black ops is by no means a realistic game, but at least they gave us some realistic camos. What kind of Black Ops soldier wants a "Red Tiger" gun?

In a nutshell, you can state your opinion, but don't tell us which one us better with absolutely no argument.

My argument is summed up.
I didn't want to sit here and type out 1000 reasons why MW2 is better.
On your defense of Quick Scoping.
Quick Scoping made COD games what they are.
If you don't like Quick Scoping because of some reason, thats okay.
But, I'd rather kill someone by Quickscoping them or sniping them in general rather than spraying with a Galil or AUG.
Nuff Nuff.

I am happy you decided to only address one point, but that made absolutely no sense. COD made its name with customization, graphics, and revolutionary game play (Specifically COD4). I remember staying up every night during one summer playing COD4 Till three in the morning. MW2 didn't have that feeling because of little kids arguing about who could quick scope and who couldn't. Quick scoping completely ruined regular sniping as well, because kids decided if it was not a quick scope that you were a horrible Hard scoping ******.

Edit: I know BO isn't realistic. It is an ARCADE shooter. It may as well be halo in terms of realism. I am just saying that they are trying to branch away from the mold that MW2 left them. How is there going to be improvement if you are buying the same rehashed game every year?

Modern Warfare 2 was very successful, Why would they completely change the game?
What Treyarch did with the sniping in Black Ops is just horrific.
Why change something that didn't need to be changed?

MW2 was successful..... for infinity ward.....

The game was completely hacked and the core purpose of ranking up, titles, and etc was completely ruined. The game had little competitive replay battle and most of the hardcore fans were disappointed. Sniping is different because it is Treyarch's game. Its a sniper, use it like one.

I will agree with you that hacking ruined the purpose of the game.
Can you not say that in time, Black Ops will become just like it?
Its a game, your supposed to be spontaneous with a sniper rifle.
Treyarch didn't have to complete remove Quick Scoping and affect Hard scoping in the process.
When you zoom in on Black Ops, The scope is off track from the original crosshair.
So while your trying to re aim while scoping in, Your sure to have been found by then.

there are way to many hitmarkers bro

MaV3Rik wrote

iSerene wrote

MaV3Rik wrote

iSerene wrote

MaV3Rik wrote

iSerene wrote

MaV3Rik wrote IMO the maps are far better. They seem to have put some thought on routes/spots/counter spots. On the subject of weapons, guns actually have recoil now. I am sorry that it is back to the old days of COD4 and Pre-COD4. On the subject of quick scoping, it is a different game. Thank God we don't have a bunch of little kids screaming "OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 360 QuIcKzSc0P3S!!!1". Quick scoping had no purpose as a game style, it was just a strategy used to possibly save your life in close range encounters.

Finally on the subject of camos, Black ops is by no means a realistic game, but at least they gave us some realistic camos. What kind of Black Ops soldier wants a "Red Tiger" gun?

In a nutshell, you can state your opinion, but don't tell us which one us better with absolutely no argument.

My argument is summed up.
I didn't want to sit here and type out 1000 reasons why MW2 is better.
On your defense of Quick Scoping.
Quick Scoping made COD games what they are.
If you don't like Quick Scoping because of some reason, thats okay.
But, I'd rather kill someone by Quickscoping them or sniping them in general rather than spraying with a Galil or AUG.
Nuff Nuff.

I am happy you decided to only address one point, but that made absolutely no sense. COD made its name with customization, graphics, and revolutionary game play (Specifically COD4). I remember staying up every night during one summer playing COD4 Till three in the morning. MW2 didn't have that feeling because of little kids arguing about who could quick scope and who couldn't. Quick scoping completely ruined regular sniping as well, because kids decided if it was a quick scope that you were a horrible Hard scoping ******.

On the subject of Camos.
'What kind of soldier wants Red tiger'
What kind of soldier wants Orange Tiger?
Most of the camos on that game are just repeats just arranged differently.

On the subject of sniping
Alls I can say is mute the annoying kids and move on.

What about all the other points?
Are you shut down?

Oh and the point was that you could truly no longer snipe because everybody assumed you were quick scoping. In black ops it actually takes patience and strategy to snipe.

Am I shut down?
Erm no..

How can I argue with 1 point, when the subject is changed every 10 seconds?

The subject has not changed once. You gave 5 opinions and one thesis. It has in no way branched off from there...

You argue on the problems with camos, then sniping, then recoil.
Lets just stick with 1 reason at a time okay?

iSerene wrote

MaV3Rik wrote

iSerene wrote

MaV3Rik wrote

iSerene wrote

MaV3Rik wrote IMO the maps are far better. They seem to have put some thought on routes/spots/counter spots. On the subject of weapons, guns actually have recoil now. I am sorry that it is back to the old days of COD4 and Pre-COD4. On the subject of quick scoping, it is a different game. Thank God we don't have a bunch of little kids screaming "OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 360 QuIcKzSc0P3S!!!1". Quick scoping had no purpose as a game style, it was just a strategy used to possibly save your life in close range encounters.

Finally on the subject of camos, Black ops is by no means a realistic game, but at least they gave us some realistic camos. What kind of Black Ops soldier wants a "Red Tiger" gun?

In a nutshell, you can state your opinion, but don't tell us which one us better with absolutely no argument.

My argument is summed up.
I didn't want to sit here and type out 1000 reasons why MW2 is better.
On your defense of Quick Scoping.
Quick Scoping made COD games what they are.
If you don't like Quick Scoping because of some reason, thats okay.
But, I'd rather kill someone by Quickscoping them or sniping them in general rather than spraying with a Galil or AUG.
Nuff Nuff.

I am happy you decided to only address one point, but that made absolutely no sense. COD made its name with customization, graphics, and revolutionary game play (Specifically COD4). I remember staying up every night during one summer playing COD4 Till three in the morning. MW2 didn't have that feeling because of little kids arguing about who could quick scope and who couldn't. Quick scoping completely ruined regular sniping as well, because kids decided if it was not a quick scope that you were a horrible Hard scoping ******.

Edit: I know BO isn't realistic. It is an ARCADE shooter. It may as well be halo in terms of realism. I am just saying that they are trying to branch away from the mold that MW2 left them. How is there going to be improvement if you are buying the same rehashed game every year?

Modern Warfare 2 was very successful, Why would they completely change the game?
What Treyarch did with the sniping in Black Ops is just horrific.
Why change something that didn't need to be changed?

MW2 was successful..... for infinity ward.....

The game was completely hacked and the core purpose of ranking up, titles, and etc was completely ruined. The game had little competitive replay battle and most of the hardcore fans were disappointed. Sniping is different because it is Treyarch's game. Its a sniper, use it like one.

I will agree with you that hacking ruined the purpose of the game.
Can you not say that in time, Black Ops will become just like it?
Its a game, your supposed to be spontaneous with a sniper rifle.
Treyarch didn't have to complete remove Quick Scoping and affect Hard scoping in the process.
When you zoom in on Black Ops, The scope is off track from the original crosshair.
So while your trying to re aim while scoping in, Your sure to have been found by then.

I never said I don't think hacking might ruin BO, but it has not yet. Treyarch is putting care and is actually resetting people that have peculiar rank/money gain. Quick scoping is directly related to normal sniping: the more quick scoping the less actual sniping.

ItzGlitcher wrote I almost disagree, with everything in that post.

Camos do suck. The weapons are overpowered because theres no stopping power.

Does that make any sense to you at all.
How in the hell can weapons be overpowered without a perk that makes the gun stronger?

CoD4 > every other cod

iSerene wrote

MaV3Rik wrote

iSerene wrote

MaV3Rik wrote

iSerene wrote

MaV3Rik wrote

iSerene wrote

MaV3Rik wrote IMO the maps are far better. They seem to have put some thought on routes/spots/counter spots. On the subject of weapons, guns actually have recoil now. I am sorry that it is back to the old days of COD4 and Pre-COD4. On the subject of quick scoping, it is a different game. Thank God we don't have a bunch of little kids screaming "OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 360 QuIcKzSc0P3S!!!1". Quick scoping had no purpose as a game style, it was just a strategy used to possibly save your life in close range encounters.

Finally on the subject of camos, Black ops is by no means a realistic game, but at least they gave us some realistic camos. What kind of Black Ops soldier wants a "Red Tiger" gun?

In a nutshell, you can state your opinion, but don't tell us which one us better with absolutely no argument.

My argument is summed up.
I didn't want to sit here and type out 1000 reasons why MW2 is better.
On your defense of Quick Scoping.
Quick Scoping made COD games what they are.
If you don't like Quick Scoping because of some reason, thats okay.
But, I'd rather kill someone by Quickscoping them or sniping them in general rather than spraying with a Galil or AUG.
Nuff Nuff.

I am happy you decided to only address one point, but that made absolutely no sense. COD made its name with customization, graphics, and revolutionary game play (Specifically COD4). I remember staying up every night during one summer playing COD4 Till three in the morning. MW2 didn't have that feeling because of little kids arguing about who could quick scope and who couldn't. Quick scoping completely ruined regular sniping as well, because kids decided if it was a quick scope that you were a horrible Hard scoping ******.

On the subject of Camos.
'What kind of soldier wants Red tiger'
What kind of soldier wants Orange Tiger?
Most of the camos on that game are just repeats just arranged differently.

On the subject of sniping
Alls I can say is mute the annoying kids and move on.

What about all the other points?
Are you shut down?

Oh and the point was that you could truly no longer snipe because everybody assumed you were quick scoping. In black ops it actually takes patience and strategy to snipe.

Am I shut down?
Erm no..

How can I argue with 1 point, when the subject is changed every 10 seconds?

The subject has not changed once. You gave 5 opinions and one thesis. It has in no way branched off from there...

You argue on the problems with camos, then sniping, then recoil.
Lets just stick with 1 reason at a time okay?

Exactly, 3 of the original 5: (camos/weapons/quick scoping). I can take it slower if you need me to.

Therese are all you opinions that nice you want to share them but i don't think people give a crap what you have say. I read one the first one get over it. Quick scoping is fun and i use to be in to it also. But it isn't the only thing that makes Call of Duty games good. Just stay on MW2 if you hate black ops so much.

MaV3Rik wrote

iSerene wrote

MaV3Rik wrote

iSerene wrote

MaV3Rik wrote

iSerene wrote

MaV3Rik wrote IMO the maps are far better. They seem to have put some thought on routes/spots/counter spots. On the subject of weapons, guns actually have recoil now. I am sorry that it is back to the old days of COD4 and Pre-COD4. On the subject of quick scoping, it is a different game. Thank God we don't have a bunch of little kids screaming "OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 360 QuIcKzSc0P3S!!!1". Quick scoping had no purpose as a game style, it was just a strategy used to possibly save your life in close range encounters.

Finally on the subject of camos, Black ops is by no means a realistic game, but at least they gave us some realistic camos. What kind of Black Ops soldier wants a "Red Tiger" gun?

In a nutshell, you can state your opinion, but don't tell us which one us better with absolutely no argument.

My argument is summed up.
I didn't want to sit here and type out 1000 reasons why MW2 is better.
On your defense of Quick Scoping.
Quick Scoping made COD games what they are.
If you don't like Quick Scoping because of some reason, thats okay.
But, I'd rather kill someone by Quickscoping them or sniping them in general rather than spraying with a Galil or AUG.
Nuff Nuff.

I am happy you decided to only address one point, but that made absolutely no sense. COD made its name with customization, graphics, and revolutionary game play (Specifically COD4). I remember staying up every night during one summer playing COD4 Till three in the morning. MW2 didn't have that feeling because of little kids arguing about who could quick scope and who couldn't. Quick scoping completely ruined regular sniping as well, because kids decided if it was not a quick scope that you were a horrible Hard scoping ******.

Edit: I know BO isn't realistic. It is an ARCADE shooter. It may as well be halo in terms of realism. I am just saying that they are trying to branch away from the mold that MW2 left them. How is there going to be improvement if you are buying the same rehashed game every year?

Modern Warfare 2 was very successful, Why would they completely change the game?
What Treyarch did with the sniping in Black Ops is just horrific.
Why change something that didn't need to be changed?

MW2 was successful..... for infinity ward.....

The game was completely hacked and the core purpose of ranking up, titles, and etc was completely ruined. The game had little competitive replay battle and most of the hardcore fans were disappointed. Sniping is different because it is Treyarch's game. Its a sniper, use it like one.

I will agree with you that hacking ruined the purpose of the game.
Can you not say that in time, Black Ops will become just like it?
Its a game, your supposed to be spontaneous with a sniper rifle.
Treyarch didn't have to complete remove Quick Scoping and affect Hard scoping in the process.
When you zoom in on Black Ops, The scope is off track from the original crosshair.
So while your trying to re aim while scoping in, Your sure to have been found by then.

I never said I don't think hacking might ruin BO, but it has not yet. Treyarch is putting care and is actually resetting people that have peculiar rank/money gain. Quick scoping is directly related to normal sniping: the more quick scoping the less actual sniping.

People should have the right to choose what style of sniper they want to be.
Treyarch shouldn't dictate how people should use a sniper.
If people have such a big problem with Quick scoping, maybe they should learn how to?
It would solve a lot of problems.

BolT_Action wrote CoD4 > every other cod

I agree, cod4 was the best cod in the whole seris