Comparing the MW series to the BO series takes some level of mental retardation,

while MW used the same engine in mw2 for mw3, BO2 looks similair to the first, but it is different if you play it, for one the campaign wasn't half bad, yes I play COD for campaign because that's why i play any game,

second the multiplayer is different as well, different guns, maps, and even killstreaks, although the objective is generally the same,

last but not least, zombies was one of the greatest ive played in BO2, reason being the multiplayer engine now runs the maps x4 bigger, has a new form of transportation and game modes,along with the usual easter eggs and classic fun

Here's the thing; from everything I've played and from having owned both titles: MW series > BO series.

BO is just shit. Like someone marketed glittered shit and people ate it because they thought it was chocolate. Not to say the MW series is by ANY means good, its just better than its spin-off.

Also, you're entitled to your opinion, but the Zombies for BO2 was rated as the worst yet by IGN (i'll go look for the article), while the game as a whole only got a 7/10 and wasn't even nominated for Game of the Year.

>Pays attention to IGN reviews
>Thinks MW is better than BO

Speaking of spinoffs didn't mw3 try to make a survival game mode type ?
Pretty sure that's treyarch's thing but sure

Again, not by any means saying the MW series is good. Its all shit. Its repackaged shit. And I do agree with you there, that the MW series tried to make a survival game mode copied from Treyarch, but that just furthers my argument that its all just repackaged shit.

Let's put it this way. Say you have 2 chickens, one lays the best quality eggs possible, the other lays only decent eggs. You decide to sell your amazing chicken's eggs to market at first for a high price, but everyone is happy because its quality. Then the next time, you throw in some of the only minor quality eggs into the basket and sell them too, but again everyone pays top-dollar because your original eggs were amazing. You repeat this until only the bad quality eggs remain, but people are still paying out the nose because your product was once the best on the market, even if it has become bland and unappealing.

implying halo isn't shit, you mock cod as being shit, while every Halo game is the same shit as well

I'm gonna trust this guy, cause he's got the Edd Ed n' Eddy response pics.

Same pretext. I will actually give you that. But Halo at least tries to make something different from game to game (not to mention it's story line is absolutely amazing).

For example: Halo actually puts time into its amazing campaign, while if you play COD for its campaign you're retarded.

There's always something new with the multiplayer, while never straying too far from the original, with COD the difference really boils down to different guns.

While there are some, most of the people who play Halo online (at least nowadays) aren't the snizzling, ragefilled, faggot-screaming 12 year olds you get nearly every game in COD.

I think that makes my point valid.

Comparing the MW series to the BO series takes some level of mental retardation,

while MW used the same engine in mw2 for mw3, BO2 looks similair to the first, but it is different if you play it, for one the campaign wasn't half bad, yes I play COD for campaign because that's why i play any game,

second the multiplayer is different as well, different guns, maps, and even killstreaks, although the objective is generally the same,

last but not least, zombies was one of the greatest ive played in BO2, reason being the multiplayer engine now runs the maps x4 bigger, has a new form of transportation and game modes,along with the usual easter eggs and classic fun

Here's the thing; from everything I've played and from having owned both titles: MW series > BO series.

BO is just shit. Like someone marketed glittered shit and people ate it because they thought it was chocolate. Not to say the MW series is by ANY means good, its just better than its spin-off.

Also, you're entitled to your opinion, but the Zombies for BO2 was rated as the worst yet by IGN (i'll go look for the article), while the game as a whole only got a 7/10 and wasn't even nominated for Game of the Year.

>Pays attention to IGN reviews
>Thinks MW is better than BO

Speaking of spinoffs didn't mw3 try to make a survival game mode type ?
Pretty sure that's treyarch's thing but sure

Again, not by any means saying the MW series is good. Its all shit. Its repackaged shit. And I do agree with you there, that the MW series tried to make a survival game mode copied from Treyarch, but that just furthers my argument that its all just repackaged shit.

Let's put it this way. Say you have 2 chickens, one lays the best quality eggs possible, the other lays only decent eggs. You decide to sell your amazing chicken's eggs to market at first for a high price, but everyone is happy because its quality. Then the next time, you throw in some of the only minor quality eggs into the basket and sell them too, but again everyone pays top-dollar because your original eggs were amazing. You repeat this until only the bad quality eggs remain, but people are still paying out the nose because your product was once the best on the market, even if it has become bland and unappealing.

And here I am playing Pokemon Stadium... what's going on here?

implying it is

Implying that COD in any form is better than the almighty Halo.

implying halo isn't shit, you mock cod as being shit, while every Halo game is the same shit as well

I'm gonna trust this guy, cause he's got the Edd Ed n' Eddy response pics.

Same pretext. I will actually give you that. But Halo at least tries to make something different from game to game (not to mention it's story line is absolutely amazing).

For example: Halo actually puts time into its amazing campaign, while if you play COD for its campaign you're retarded.

There's always something new with the multiplayer, while never straying too far from the original, with COD the difference really boils down to different guns.

While there are some, most of the people who play Halo online (at least nowadays) aren't the snizzling, ragefilled, faggot-screaming 12 year olds you get nearly every game in COD.

I think that makes my point valid.

Comparing the MW series to the BO series takes some level of mental retardation,

while MW used the same engine in mw2 for mw3, BO2 looks similair to the first, but it is different if you play it, for one the campaign wasn't half bad, yes I play COD for campaign because that's why i play any game,

second the multiplayer is different as well, different guns, maps, and even killstreaks, although the objective is generally the same,

last but not least, zombies was one of the greatest ive played in BO2, reason being the multiplayer engine now runs the maps x4 bigger, has a new form of transportation and game modes,along with the usual easter eggs and classic fun

Here's the thing; from everything I've played and from having owned both titles: MW series > BO series.

BO is just shit. Like someone marketed glittered shit and people ate it because they thought it was chocolate. Not to say the MW series is by ANY means good, its just better than its spin-off.

Also, you're entitled to your opinion, but the Zombies for BO2 was rated as the worst yet by IGN (i'll go look for the article), while the game as a whole only got a 7/10 and wasn't even nominated for Game of the Year.

>Pays attention to IGN reviews
>Thinks MW is better than BO

Speaking of spinoffs didn't mw3 try to make a survival game mode type ?
Pretty sure that's treyarch's thing but sure

Again, not by any means saying the MW series is good. Its all shit. Its repackaged shit. And I do agree with you there, that the MW series tried to make a survival game mode copied from Treyarch, but that just furthers my argument that its all just repackaged shit.

Let's put it this way. Say you have 2 chickens, one lays the best quality eggs possible, the other lays only decent eggs. You decide to sell your amazing chicken's eggs to market at first for a high price, but everyone is happy because its quality. Then the next time, you throw in some of the only minor quality eggs into the basket and sell them too, but again everyone pays top-dollar because your original eggs were amazing. You repeat this until only the bad quality eggs remain, but people are still paying out the nose because your product was once the best on the market, even if it has become bland and unappealing.

And here I am playing Pokemon Stadium... what's going on here?

MW, MW2, Black Ops, MW3, and Black Ops 2 are all great games. Usually the only people that will hate them are Halo fanatics or people who are just not that good at CoD.

Or people with a sense of value, cost, change, fun, realism, or intelligence.

I guess you can call me a Halo fanatic. But in all honesty, they really are shit games, minus the original MW and WaW. They all lack the "new" component to the title, there's nothing different, just the same shit over and over.

Also, as for the "aren't that good" card. I thought it was too easy. I played through every one of their campaigns on Veteran without much trouble and (when I was playing, I let my friends play a lot and they brought my KDR down a fuck load) when playing online I typically went (averaging) 20-8 every game.

They're was nothing wrong with MW1 and Black Ops one so of course they made it the same over and over. Millions of people liked it so they made a game just like it, it's not too hard to get. Halo's franchise fell apart due to so much change with in the game, and Bungie didn't respond to fan requests as much as they could, they tried to make Halo different in hopes of the next game being "NEW! EXCITING!"

But that wasn't the case. The story line was pretty competitive as well, and yes I do play Halo and I love it as much as anyone else. But Call of Duty has that longer lasting kick to it. From Halo 2 I found competitive gaming a thriving awesome experience, so i copped Halo 3 as soon as it got out, and fell in love. I played Halo 3 from 2007 to 2011. REACH was when Halo stopped being so cool to me. I leveled all the way to General Brigadier on Halo 3 and it meant something. But in Halo REACH levels didn't mean anything, it was too easy to rank up.

I can just find Call of Duty more fun and lasting than Halo. The first CoD I actually enjoyed with Multiplayer was MW2

I played Halo 3 and MW2 from back to back. It was one of the best gaming years for me. I didn't care for my K/D but I did strong with 1.50-1.60. My friends were the biggest help for me to start playing MW2.

Friends is a key factor to take when Judging a game. If you play a game with no friends then there's more of a chance of it being boring and lame. Friends make the world go round.

Thank you on your output It made me get them Nostalgic feels, Halo 3 was so popular and if it made a comeback it would be nice, met some of my best friends on that game.

Ill give you Reach's multiplayer was shit. No doubt there. It was more of Bungie's last hurrah because they didn't have anything else to do. But now look at Halo 4; it's simply perfect, I honestly believe it has the best of the 3 main FPS's multiplayers (COD, Halo, and BF) in one beautifully crafted piece of art.

For me, I have the same effect for Halo you do for COD, Halo just has a much more lasting appeal to it.

Storyline was repetitive*

MW was actually good, because it was NEW. At the time it was something people hadn't gotten before (outside of Halo, which was only a fraction as popular as it is today) marketed to the big industry. Thats what made it good; it was fresh. Now the CODs are just trying to feed off the hype the first MW stirred for them.

Honestly, I admire Activision/Treyarch for this marketing scheme. They have a product that's awful, but because they released one title beforehand that really got people going, they have the public eating out of their hands.

Implying BO1 and 2 zombies weren't the shit

Implying that zombies isn't retarded

implying it is

Implying that COD in any form is better than the almighty Halo.

implying halo isn't shit, you mock cod as being shit, while every Halo game is the same shit as well

I'm gonna trust this guy, cause he's got the Edd Ed n' Eddy response pics.

Same pretext. I will actually give you that. But Halo at least tries to make something different from game to game (not to mention it's story line is absolutely amazing).

For example: Halo actually puts time into its amazing campaign, while if you play COD for its campaign you're retarded.

There's always something new with the multiplayer, while never straying too far from the original, with COD the difference really boils down to different guns.

While there are some, most of the people who play Halo online (at least nowadays) aren't the snizzling, ragefilled, faggot-screaming 12 year olds you get nearly every game in COD.

I think that makes my point valid.

Comparing the MW series to the BO series takes some level of mental retardation,

while MW used the same engine in mw2 for mw3, BO2 looks similair to the first, but it is different if you play it, for one the campaign wasn't half bad, yes I play COD for campaign because that's why i play any game,

second the multiplayer is different as well, different guns, maps, and even killstreaks, although the objective is generally the same,

last but not least, zombies was one of the greatest ive played in BO2, reason being the multiplayer engine now runs the maps x4 bigger, has a new form of transportation and game modes,along with the usual easter eggs and classic fun

Here's the thing; from everything I've played and from having owned both titles: MW series > BO series.

BO is just shit. Like someone marketed glittered shit and people ate it because they thought it was chocolate. Not to say the MW series is by ANY means good, its just better than its spin-off.

Also, you're entitled to your opinion, but the Zombies for BO2 was rated as the worst yet by IGN (i'll go look for the article), while the game as a whole only got a 7/10 and wasn't even nominated for Game of the Year.

>Pays attention to IGN reviews
>Thinks MW is better than BO

Speaking of spinoffs didn't mw3 try to make a survival game mode type ?
Pretty sure that's treyarch's thing but sure

Again, not by any means saying the MW series is good. Its all shit. Its repackaged shit. And I do agree with you there, that the MW series tried to make a survival game mode copied from Treyarch, but that just furthers my argument that its all just repackaged shit.

Let's put it this way. Say you have 2 chickens, one lays the best quality eggs possible, the other lays only decent eggs. You decide to sell your amazing chicken's eggs to market at first for a high price, but everyone is happy because its quality. Then the next time, you throw in some of the only minor quality eggs into the basket and sell them too, but again everyone pays top-dollar because your original eggs were amazing. You repeat this until only the bad quality eggs remain, but people are still paying out the nose because your product was once the best on the market, even if it has become bland and unappealing.

And here I am playing Pokemon Stadium... what's going on here?

implying BO2 was shit

He doesn't need to imply it.
He said it, and the game said it.

Implying that every COD since MW2 hasn't been shit.

MW, MW2, Black Ops, MW3, and Black Ops 2 are all great games. Usually the only people that will hate them are Halo fanatics or people who are just not that good at CoD.

Or people with a sense of value, cost, change, fun, realism, or intelligence.

I guess you can call me a Halo fanatic. But in all honesty, they really are shit games, minus the original MW and WaW. They all lack the "new" component to the title, there's nothing different, just the same shit over and over.

Also, as for the "aren't that good" card. I thought it was too easy. I played through every one of their campaigns on Veteran without much trouble and (when I was playing, I let my friends play a lot and they brought my KDR down a fuck load) when playing online I typically went (averaging) 20-8 every game.

They're was nothing wrong with MW1 and Black Ops one so of course they made it the same over and over. Millions of people liked it so they made a game just like it, it's not too hard to get. Halo's franchise fell apart due to so much change with in the game, and Bungie didn't respond to fan requests as much as they could, they tried to make Halo different in hopes of the next game being "NEW! EXCITING!"

But that wasn't the case. The story line was pretty competitive as well, and yes I do play Halo and I love it as much as anyone else. But Call of Duty has that longer lasting kick to it. From Halo 2 I found competitive gaming a thriving awesome experience, so i copped Halo 3 as soon as it got out, and fell in love. I played Halo 3 from 2007 to 2011. REACH was when Halo stopped being so cool to me. I leveled all the way to General Brigadier on Halo 3 and it meant something. But in Halo REACH levels didn't mean anything, it was too easy to rank up.

I can just find Call of Duty more fun and lasting than Halo. The first CoD I actually enjoyed with Multiplayer was MW2

I played Halo 3 and MW2 from back to back. It was one of the best gaming years for me. I didn't care for my K/D but I did strong with 1.50-1.60. My friends were the biggest help for me to start playing MW2.

Friends is a key factor to take when Judging a game. If you play a game with no friends then there's more of a chance of it being boring and lame. Friends make the world go round.

Thank you on your output It made me get them Nostalgic feels, Halo 3 was so popular and if it made a comeback it would be nice, met some of my best friends on that game.

Ill give you Reach's multiplayer was shit. No doubt there. It was more of Bungie's last hurrah because they didn't have anything else to do. But now look at Halo 4; it's simply perfect, I honestly believe it has the best of the 3 main FPS's multiplayers (COD, Halo, and BF) in one beautifully crafted piece of art.

For me, I have the same effect for Halo you do for COD, Halo just has a much more lasting appeal to it.

Storyline was repetitive*

MW was actually good, because it was NEW. At the time it was something people hadn't gotten before (outside of Halo, which was only a fraction as popular as it is today) marketed to the big industry. Thats what made it good; it was fresh. Now the CODs are just trying to feed off the hype the first MW stirred for them.

Honestly, I admire Activision/Treyarch for this marketing scheme. They have a product that's awful, but because they released one title beforehand that really got people going, they have the public eating out of their hands.

Implying BO1 and 2 zombies weren't the shit

Implying that zombies isn't retarded

implying it is

Implying that COD in any form is better than the almighty Halo.

implying halo isn't shit, you mock cod as being shit, while every Halo game is the same shit as well

I'm gonna trust this guy, cause he's got the Edd Ed n' Eddy response pics.

Same pretext. I will actually give you that. But Halo at least tries to make something different from game to game (not to mention it's story line is absolutely amazing).

For example: Halo actually puts time into its amazing campaign, while if you play COD for its campaign you're retarded.

There's always something new with the multiplayer, while never straying too far from the original, with COD the difference really boils down to different guns.

While there are some, most of the people who play Halo online (at least nowadays) aren't the snizzling, ragefilled, faggot-screaming 12 year olds you get nearly every game in COD.

I think that makes my point valid.

Comparing the MW series to the BO series takes some level of mental retardation,

while MW used the same engine in mw2 for mw3, BO2 looks similair to the first, but it is different if you play it, for one the campaign wasn't half bad, yes I play COD for campaign because that's why i play any game,

second the multiplayer is different as well, different guns, maps, and even killstreaks, although the objective is generally the same,

last but not least, zombies was one of the greatest ive played in BO2, reason being the multiplayer engine now runs the maps x4 bigger, has a new form of transportation and game modes,along with the usual easter eggs and classic fun

Here's the thing; from everything I've played and from having owned both titles: MW series > BO series.

BO is just shit. Like someone marketed glittered shit and people ate it because they thought it was chocolate. Not to say the MW series is by ANY means good, its just better than its spin-off.

Also, you're entitled to your opinion, but the Zombies for BO2 was rated as the worst yet by IGN (i'll go look for the article), while the game as a whole only got a 7/10 and wasn't even nominated for Game of the Year.

>Pays attention to IGN reviews
>Thinks MW is better than BO

Speaking of spinoffs didn't mw3 try to make a survival game mode type ?
Pretty sure that's treyarch's thing but sure

Again, not by any means saying the MW series is good. Its all shit. Its repackaged shit. And I do agree with you there, that the MW series tried to make a survival game mode copied from Treyarch, but that just furthers my argument that its all just repackaged shit.

Let's put it this way. Say you have 2 chickens, one lays the best quality eggs possible, the other lays only decent eggs. You decide to sell your amazing chicken's eggs to market at first for a high price, but everyone is happy because its quality. Then the next time, you throw in some of the only minor quality eggs into the basket and sell them too, but again everyone pays top-dollar because your original eggs were amazing. You repeat this until only the bad quality eggs remain, but people are still paying out the nose because your product was once the best on the market, even if it has become bland and unappealing.

And here I am playing Pokemon Stadium... what's going on here?

woo band kids! glad i'm not the only one.

do you play? i'm a trumpet here at my high school, i've been playing for 7 years

Same. Trumpet at my high school, been playing for 8 lol.

woo band kids! glad i'm not the only one.

the dual lines tell us that it will be repeated in verse, the stacked notes show us that multiple people will be playing the different lined up notes.

all and all though it looks too fake, it made perfect shapes which means it was created for the object of looking hard, not play ability.

Ah, you got me there. I know enough about music to talk about it, but I'm not the most knowledgeable person on the topic, so I concede here.

do you play? i'm a trumpet here at my high school, i've been playing for 7 years

Same. Trumpet at my high school, been playing for 8 lol.

woo band kids! glad i'm not the only one.

Caught in a landslide

open your eyes,look up to the sky and see

i know, i laughed so badly, haha:L

You have to go to the fucking afterlife to kill Alduin... I kill red eyes with a trap card.

Okay you got me there....

Especially the anime version of Darkness Metal.

doesn't sound to bad

Well, anywho, fantastic writting.

Thank you my friend.

I understand the whole anger thing, but still a bit unrealistic. In my opnion, it would have been better if he punched her neck and that killed her.

A fair opinion

Well, anywho, fantastic writting.

Thank you my friend.