When I first played the game I sided with the Stormcloaks as well. But there's a few things you have to come to understand before you make an educated decision. First of all, Skyrim is not the Nord's original homeland. They've been there for a long time, but it is not originally theirs. So all of Ulfric's propaganda about Skyrim being for only Nords is a bunch of bullcrap. Tiber Septim forged the Empire for universal peace, not for racial superiority. Two, one of Ulfric's rallying causes for his rebellion is the fact that the Empire surrendered to the Aldmeri Dominion and is accepting the consequence of banning Talos worship. While this would be hard to swallow, it saves the Empire and its people from annihilation. By opposing the Empire and causing internal strife he is putting everyone else at risk, since the Aldmeri Dominion could finish the Empire off by creating a second front on Imperial borders in Skyrim. These things considered, Ulfric just comes off as a man who hungers for more power. He's ambitious, but seems selfish and inconsiderate. The Empire benefits Skyrim's people more than Ulfric's rebellion.
Here are the main issues: 1. People cheat. 2. Connections aren't the greatest on Black Ops II servers. 3. A lot of people use SMGs, which are not only overpowered but ideal for close-quarters, which brings me to my next point... 4. Maps are smaller than my house (bad joke). 5. Killstreaking bonuses can make games ridiculous, and quite frankly make what should be straight up fights a bunch of hoopla... because you can call down napalm, mortars, and airstrikes to clear up the map.
You know what the most annoying thing about Black Ops II is? The zombie modes suck. It used to be simple in nature. That is to say the game used to be about killing zombies and surviving. Now it's about going to places on a bus and building a bunch of crappy gadgets while creatures called "denizens" jump on your head 24/7. Treyfarce needs to get back to basics here. And what the hack happened to the Nazi Zombies?? Point is, more guns, tougher zombies, better maps. Get your head out of the sand Treyfarce and listen to your hardcore zombie murkin' fans!
I personally like your idea of going back to WWI. But I seriously doubt enough of the CoD fanbase shares our sentiment or interests. People are too used to carrying automatic pistols and ARs. But I don't see why a WWI Cod game couldn't be fun given the right story, maps, and weapons. Even back then they had LMGs and SMGs... One of which, the Lewis Gun, was on WaW. Another, called the MP18, was the first SMG to be used in combat. Most of the weapons back then, however, were bolt-action rifles. So, most people would be using the subs and LMGs rather than the rifles, which were the main guns of WWI. That's why I think it might as well be WWII, or perhaps Korean War-era. Otherwise you'd just hae a bunch of people running around with MP18s. lol
The kinfe is overpowered. A knife will not instantly kill someone just by swiping them [or otherwise] in most cases, especially when they're wearing equipment and/or armor. Imo, what makes the game so unbalanced is more the maps than the guns. Make the maps bigger and the guns' pros and cons will naturally come into play. A lot of the maps are too small for proper sniping because you can easily get killed from behind due to the maps' small sizes. This is also why shotguns are instapwn on here as well. A lot of the maps are too small. Make the maps bigger and shotgunners will have to actually use some tact to get closer to their opponents. That's why I like Battlefield more.
Who wants to return to the WWII era? I do. I miss the guns and how it took more skill to play online. In fact, I actually enjoyed playing online when WaW was out. What I'm thinking is Treyarch should do what Battlefield is doing. Expand the map. Make vehicles apart of the warfare. Tanks and P-51s should be able to be manned. Anti-air guns as well. I think they should go back to the basics, and get rid of all this killstreak bonus crap. If you have bigger maps, you won't have the same issues everyone's been experiencing with the spawn-camping. There will be less deaths by bouncing bettys and all weapons will be tantamount so to speak. SMGs won't necessarily carry the day if the fighting is happening over the Sahara desert, know what I mean? ;)
If they were actually bringing characters back from previous sagas, I'd have to choose Vercetti from Vice City and Packie from GTA IV. Both were funny.
I'm pretty sure they're saving Vice City for next gen consoles. It only made more sense to do Los Santos again first, and save the more well-liked city for the next gen, where they could put better graphics and mechanics. And think about it... the next GTA would be VI. They could be used for the lettering of Vice for the title. So it might be called Grand Theft Auto VIce, showing that it's a new saga and that it's in Vice City. Just thought that was interesting... It's also possible that any dlc for GTA V could include other areas of San Andreas, which would explain why they chose to start out with Los Santos only. And think about it, each GTA saga, III and IV, have had two additional stories. GTA III had Vice City and San Andreas, and GTA IV had The Lost and the Damned and The Ballad of Gay Tony. This pattern suggests the possibility of two dlcs, or, stand-alone games for the GTA V saga. One dlc could be set in San Fierro, and the other could be set in Las Venturas, thus uniting San Andreas in the completion of the GTA V saga. Then the book could be closed on San Andreas and Rockstar could move on to Vice City.
Play Saints Row 3 if you want crazy stuff then. I LOVED GTA 4 and hope that GTA 5 continues on the same path
gdawg234
The same path? The same path as in no vehicular and character customization, not nearly as many clothes, guns, and activities, no property purchases, and business-building, no cheats, and gang wars, no vehicular licensing and rewards? I hope GTA V is nothing like GTA IV.
Log in to comment