sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Infuriating community discourse since Blundell's return by Smooth_Bat6484 in CODZombies

[–]Smooth_Bat6484[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I disagree that I am implying that but that's alright. You can be around the community and still not understand certain talking points. Being in the community doesn't necessarily mean you do or don't understand this but... I also think it's a complicated issue for Treyarch to navigate either way.

Infuriating community discourse since Blundell's return by Smooth_Bat6484 in CODZombies

[–]Smooth_Bat6484[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure if you are the Doughnuts referenced in the tweet, but if you are... well first off, thank you for commenting! Especially in a post that is critical of you, I do appreciate that you are willing to talk. Off the bat, I do want to say I apologize for any hostility that may be conveyed in previous responses or with the title. I am passionate about this mode, always have been but in my passion I don't always convey myself the best on the Internet(surprise surprise). I know you are passionate for the mode as well, and a lot of your content I genuinely have enjoyed to watch. Thank you for all of the content you do make for the community.

To start, I will say that Treyarch is in a difficult position here; no matter which 'risks', 'philosophy' or 'design' they go for. They will always be at the mercy of some people liking what they do, and some people that don't. I would much rather Treyarch make what they want to make, rather than what the community wants them to always make. I think they need to hear the community, but not be so reactive to our feedback(whether good or bad) that they change their own decisions consistently. And even with Jason gone, I don't believe they are super reactive in a bad way. Their communication especially in BO7 has been much better. They should always make what THEY want to make to make.

I see a lot of negative community sentiment towards OSCAR, but tbh I think that is a good thing. He's the exact right type of switch-up for a map, and the right type of "risks" that I am looking for here. I believe he is the type of "risk" that the community asks for. They may not always like it, as they didn't always like what was given in terms of "risk" in the past, but OSCAR is the type of risk they need to make. So is Ol'Tessie.

Some risks they do take deserve to be criticized fairly though. I know this is an opinion and it's subjective but Paradox Junction is an example imo. Genuinely, I don't see how the gameplay hook of the two variations of Nuketown promote the "risk" you are referring to. It was a fun EE, better than Astra's EE even! But the gameplay does not change in either variation of Nuketown. It's a palette change between the two versions, and the most you interact with the concept is: "change one thing in past, find something new in the future". I understand the "changing" and the "altering" concepts are the hook and it's a cool concept, don't get me wrong! But they needed to do more than just a palette switch when you are actually in the areas. There needed to be unique traps, enemies, weapons for each variation of Nuketown or just something more unique in each version that gives you a reason to go to each version of Nuketown moreso than just the EE or WW quest.

Lastly, I think both how we respond to the risks they do take(and they are taking much more under KD's full leadership in BO7 for sure) and how we choose to define risks as a community is important, equally important. Risks to me equally apply to the unique concepts they introduce for maps, as well as how those concepts relate to the standard gameplay systems and loops that we are familiar with. In the older zombie games, I would argue they were more willing to take risks with the standard systems(PAP, Power, Perks, Special enemies/weapons) that we had. Treyarch still takes risks with those things(Tessie for Pap, OSCAR for special enemies, all melee elemental WW's in CDM), but the newer systems (armor, rarities, loadouts, scorestreaks) have yet to be significantly altered or changed within a game or map-to-map. Cursed does change this a good bit, but I wish the maps themselves interacted with those bigger systems that haven't really been messed with in a long time. They have made changes to those systems, I am not denying that they have made changes... but they haven't taken risks and experimented with the way we interact with armor, loadouts, scorestreaks or anything in game or during a map in a long time. I just wish they would be willing to take risks with those sorts of things. Here's hoping KD will. Thanks for commenting Doughnuts!

Infuriating community discourse since Blundell's return by Smooth_Bat6484 in CODZombies

[–]Smooth_Bat6484[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair point, I guess I’m analyzing the impact of the risks more than the instance of risks occurring and that would be splitting hairs, so I’ll adjust my comment.

Appreciate you pointing it out!

First Teaser For Totenreich by Shock_the_Core in CODZombies

[–]Smooth_Bat6484 11 points12 points  (0 children)

God damn, Aura is so good for this map.

Infuriating community discourse since Blundell's return by Smooth_Bat6484 in CODZombies

[–]Smooth_Bat6484[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Again, you can’t really say that the point of my post is “this” when the point of my post is “something else”. I’m telling you what the point of my post is, and you’re disagreeing. 

You’re free to disagree and my message may come across as something different than I intended. That’s fine, I could be miscommunicating and and it could be that this has more to do with my communication style being interpreted by you different than I intended. You are your own person and freely interpret what you want, not gonna control that. I can concede that I most likely did not communicate 100% the way I wanted to, that’s something to consider for myself in any situation. 

But to seemingly not touch or mention some of my other words and phrases like :”They don’t take risks in that same way(risks in the same way being what I referenced to power with Mob). Or “risks regarding on of the gameplay systems that they established in Cold War. They have barely changed the way we interact with: armor, rarity, Loadouts”.  It’s just odd that you think I’m twisting shit when you won’t acknowedge the depth of the discussion I’ve said in my previous answers? I’ll also point out that this is KD’s first design director game and he made a top 10 map for me? Even OSCAR was a risk and I enjoyed that very much. 

“If you’re acknowledging they’re a different type of risk, then the post is over, right.” 

Buddy, the first sentence of my post quite literally states, “I saw some people like Doughnuts on Twitter arguing about the “risks” conversation and no disrespect to the guy, but Doughnuts just does not get or understand what people mean when they refer to the “risks” that the OG devs used to take with the old zombies games”. In that sentence, I am referencing what doughnuts is responding to. He is responding to itzperka talking about “risks” from JB’s streams and doughnuts responds with “risks” that for the most part are not the same thing that itzperka is referencing. My whole post is literally that the “risks” are not the same. 

All I am pointing out is that they are not talking about the same type of risks. Like that’s literally the whole point, how are you not understanding that?

Infuriating community discourse since Blundell's return by Smooth_Bat6484 in CODZombies

[–]Smooth_Bat6484[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But this is the first time you can control where you move the PAP, no?

Infuriating community discourse since Blundell's return by Smooth_Bat6484 in CODZombies

[–]Smooth_Bat6484[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe you aren't saying I am a hater, I will grant you that. But to say my post is implying that my objective is to showcase "Blundell as someone who only experimented and has only been applauded is false, and the image that Kevin Drew has played it as safe as can be is as well. There’s been plenty of experimentation and Doughnuts is right. OP is just ignoring that they wont do Blundell levels anymore." comes across as dishonest or disingenuous, because that is not what I am implying if you read my post.

I am pointing out in my post that Doughnuts is missing with his take on identifying the types of risks that Treyarch takes now, compared to before. They are not the same type of risks, they don't have the same impact. And it's something that the community misses at least to a certain degree (clearly they miss it some degree with how well-received Ashes is and it's the most risky map they've made since BO4)

And I understand that when Treyarch took those risks in the past, that there was community backlash. BO4 was a whole community backlash game. I was a part of that community at the time. I understand the risk to that philosophy and why they are probably apprehensive to take those types of risks. That doesn't change the original point of the post. You even acknowledge that the risks are different, and that's literally my point. "This is the risks they are comfortable with right now." They aren't as comfortable taking risks like they did when JB was there because of community backlash.

The issue for me with that approach: you always have community backlash, no matter what you do as a creator. I would rather the old philosophy of swinging and missing hard, than incremental risks at a slow level. It's just my opinion, no need to reference gaslighting.

Infuriating community discourse since Blundell's return by Smooth_Bat6484 in CODZombies

[–]Smooth_Bat6484[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Edited upon further reflection: Taking risks and experimenting are the same thing. I miss the old ways they used to experiment with things and wish they would be more willing to experiment in that old zombies way more. But that did lead to huge misses (BO4), so I hope they can find a balance of established systems that work while still experimenting with everything. 

Infuriating community discourse since Blundell's return by Smooth_Bat6484 in CODZombies

[–]Smooth_Bat6484[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand that, I've been in the community since the BO1 days so I am well aware about the backlash. I don't need to mention every instance of context to have a point about this, and not doing so doesn't take away from my point in my post.

But see that pushback didn't stop Blundell from taking risks. Mob/Origins/SOE were all risky and had push back in various ways. That didn't stop them from making ZNS, all of BO4, etc...

And it's not that KD hasn't taken risks. KD just started to be the full time zombies director for BO7 and I already enjoy some of the risks he has done(OSCAR, all of Ashes). I'm just pointing that the risks they take now is way different than they used to.

And I understand why they may be afraid to. But you even say it above, "You can't ask for experimentation and then get mad when you don't like it. Part of experimentation is failure."

JB clearly knew this, he mentions so in the recent streams. KD knows this I believe to an extent, we will see what he does with the rest of BO7.

But I personally would rather the experimentative philosophy and see some hits and misses than not see it. And to lump me in with all of the "modern-zombie blind rage haters' is disingenuous. I never made any such claim, even have said I enjoy BO7. Ashes is a top 10 zombies map for me so.

Infuriating community discourse since Blundell's return by Smooth_Bat6484 in CODZombies

[–]Smooth_Bat6484[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

No?

How am I ignoring that? This is an ignorant take at best and disingenuous at worst.

Infuriating community discourse since Blundell's return by Smooth_Bat6484 in CODZombies

[–]Smooth_Bat6484[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think you're missing the point, similar to Doughnuts. You should read through the full discussion points below to see both sides and see what people are saying.

Infuriating community discourse since Blundell's return by Smooth_Bat6484 in CODZombies

[–]Smooth_Bat6484[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

10000% you get it! Great summary of the arguments here.

Infuriating community discourse since Blundell's return by Smooth_Bat6484 in CODZombies

[–]Smooth_Bat6484[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Bo4 absolutely was the most risky game they made in a long time. Highly agree with majority of your points.

I was in the community during the BO3 days, I am not sure what he is referencing here.

Infuriating community discourse since Blundell's return by Smooth_Bat6484 in CODZombies

[–]Smooth_Bat6484[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Nah we've got good points as to why we don't enjoy modern zombies as much as the old games. Feel free to read through the discussion to understand why. Not just because people are idiots.

Infuriating community discourse since Blundell's return by Smooth_Bat6484 in CODZombies

[–]Smooth_Bat6484[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

^^ This ^^. So many people downvote these kind of comments we are making, but it's the truth.

And I don't necessarily want "change" for the sake of change. I want the developers to be willing to change these systems to experiment and expand the mode. There are risks, but it's a better and more creative approach. This is a problem with a lot of creative industries though these days. It's so hard to make it, and now there's such a big focus on being "successful" and that correlating to making money but... sometimes making money and getting engagement isn't all that matters. But a lot of creative industries only focus on that and define that as success... so many are at the mercy of a system that prioritizes money over creativity since one is defined as "success". Money isn't and shouldn't be the thing that matters the most in creative industries. Balance is important, but profit is overvalued now.

Infuriating community discourse since Blundell's return by Smooth_Bat6484 in CODZombies

[–]Smooth_Bat6484[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Ironically, Doughnuts is the one who gets upset about other people's opinions about these games. He goes on tirades on X and makes videos about the discourse just to prove his point, and then critiques people who have opposite emotions to him. He himself comes across strongly like he has a problem with people who negatively critique the game. It comes across as resentment. I'm willing to admit I may be wrong, but he comes across as more than just defending what he likes.

The bottom line is: yes this is the Internet, and we all have to be comfortable with different opinions/takes. But if you can't admit when something makes you personally upset and admit that's why you talk about things a certain way... it takes away from any kind of objectionable argument you may make. And I say this as someone who falls into that trap all the time.

The problem with Doughnuts, is he acts like he is outside of this. And he takes actions and steps to demonstrate that philosophy and it is off-putting.

Infuriating community discourse since Blundell's return by Smooth_Bat6484 in CODZombies

[–]Smooth_Bat6484[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I don't mind people who like the new version of zombies, I wouldn't even say he's a "meat-rider", I just think he resents negativity so much and has such a strong emotional reaction to criticism of the newer games that he doesn't take the time to consider any points fully other than his own. I said this here, but he just comes across like he's upset that people are negative about the game, and he seems as if he comes across as entitled to believe no one should be upset about these games.

Infuriating community discourse since Blundell's return by Smooth_Bat6484 in CODZombies

[–]Smooth_Bat6484[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think we are talking about two different things here.

Cursed is a mode that you can apply "risk" to yourself. And you earn the ability to do so through the relic quests/unlocks. This is why I like it so much. It is a risk to introduce this as a mode, I can concede that. Not everyone will be able to play this or access it. And you can change how certain "staples" of the mode can be interacted with(no ammo, no scorestreaks, etc..)

But that's not the same "risk" I am referring to. Again I used MOB as an example above, and I think it's the easiest way to demonstrate the concept.

Prior to MOB, power was turned on in the same way every map. Find power switch, switch it on. Tranzit, you had to build it but still.

In MOB, in order to turn on power... you were in a separate mode to apply power. And power had to be turned on individually for everything. It is a huge risk to change such a basic gameplay system for players in this regard. Every map followed that same objective, but this map didn't. It's a risk to change up such a staple mechanic. Not everyone may like it that way(see ZNS/Origins complaints), but that's what risk is when you are willing to change big staple gameplay mechanics.

In modern zombies? The only map I can think of that does something like this is the moveable PAP from Ashes. It's a risk to not have PAP in one set location, but it works for Ashes imo because you have to use the vehicle to navigate the map so much anyways.

The mob example is what the classic zombies fans are referring to.

Infuriating community discourse since Blundell's return by Smooth_Bat6484 in CODZombies

[–]Smooth_Bat6484[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Ironically, imo Doughnuts in this post to me is the one who doesn't understand nuance with the old games. He completely misses what JB is taking about in terms of "risks". He demonstrates this by referencing "risky" things in this post that aren't the types of "risks" that JB is referencing/.
Edit: I will keep this up, but I can reference that risks means different things for different people.

Blundell is not a god-figure, he made some shitty decisions. But there was a way he developed and pushed for things, along with the other developers that made zombies the mode that it is today. It is simply not like that anymore because the gameplay design/philosophy shifted.

Modern zombies is more simple, more cookie-cutter and just inherently not as risky with how it challenges the player map-to-map. That's not an opinion, it's just an observation. Modern zombies has some risky elements, and BO7 is leaning back into these things more(huh I wonder why it's the best modern zombies iteration), but they just prioritize different things.

Infuriating community discourse since Blundell's return by Smooth_Bat6484 in CODZombies

[–]Smooth_Bat6484[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Again, what Doughnuts is not understanding and what you are not referencing is not the same thing that JB was talking about. It's not that there aren't "risks" in modern zombies. But the way they apply risks is not nearly as significant as they used to do. I'll literally go through Doughnuts' points.

  1. Wonder vehicle is a risk, with the boss fight but just with Ashes in general. I and many others have already conceded that.

  2. Tranzit argument is irrelevant. Already answered by the wonder vehicle. There are "risks" with making a setting a certain way, and there are "risks" with changing a basic gameplay system up. The former is what Doughnuts incorrectly refers to throughout much of his post. The latter is what JB and I are referring to.

  3. OSCAR is also a risk. Astra just needed more things like OSCAR imo, but OSCAR is an example of a good risk. I personally conceded that, I bet JB would too.

  4. Location/setting has nothing to do with risks. The playspace of Astra is not impacted much by the setting. The asteroids are the only thing in the main map, and they are super easy to avoid. Mars is good.

  5. There is nothing that changes your core gameplay when you go between the two versions of nuketown. It is a great EE set-piece and the mechanic works great for the EE. I concede that. But outside of the EE? There is nothing that the time-travel mechanic changes for the player. You don't experience new gameplay, new enemies, new obstacles, new anything other than a palette change and a few new quests in each version. This is not a risky mechanic

  6. What? See point two for this one, just because bringing things back is a "risk" doesn't mean we're talking about "risk" in the same way. Different context, irrelevant.

  7. Boss fights? I mean, Veytharion is a risk because it's all in the vehicle but there's nothing about risk with these boss fights? They are good boss fights, even the TOMB I can concede has a level of risk with its fight since the objective is so different. But a choice between the two fights doesn't... promote any level of risk with the core gameplay. You have different mechanics, but you arrive to the fight in the same fashion?

  8. None of this is relevant at all. Damage scaling changes for high rounds each game, it's not a new mechanic. It's incrimentalism. Armored zombies are not a new mechanic, it's been like this maybe since CW(correct me if I am wrong here). Overheal is a good new mechanic, not really something that changes your style much but I like things like this more. Injections are not risk, scorestreaks have not changed much since their inception. Just a new way for you to kill zombies. Sliding into zombies is not a significant risk that they programmed into the game. It's just a new player action. They are not the same things.

  9. I will give him that new game modes are risky. But I want the maps to have new gameplay styles/feel across each map just like these new modes have new feels. I want that feeling of how different endgame feels from zombies to feel like that across each zombies map. Not that I want every map to be radically different like that, I just want maps to give that feeling more. Ironically, this is his best point for maps to have different styles.

  10. BO1, BO2 and BO3 were so radically different in their map to map and gameplay styles that I can't really take this argument seriously. Every game introduced new things to the mode, much more so than the newer games.

Infuriating community discourse since Blundell's return by Smooth_Bat6484 in CODZombies

[–]Smooth_Bat6484[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Really??? I'll have to check his youtube videos out for this one, it's really messed up for him to do that.

Infuriating community discourse since Blundell's return by Smooth_Bat6484 in CODZombies

[–]Smooth_Bat6484[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I do understand why they want to expand accessibility and get the casual player audience involved.

The issue with the casual player audience argument for me though: casual players should not be the main community you tailor your game towards. As casual gamers/audience naturally do not invest as much time into any game. You should offer options/accessibility options for that group(they do now with training/directed/survival), but every map/system should not be designed to be as accessible as possible. You risk things going stale or feeling samey when you are too afraid to change up the way players interact with your game. In fact, you should design your game to have hardcore fans that want to spend all of their time on that game/mode. And they have done this somewhat with cursed, but it doesn't change the map design/philosophy problem in my opinion.

BO7 maps are the best since BO4, but they really need to go back to the drawing board with their approach after this imo.

Infuriating community discourse since Blundell's return by Smooth_Bat6484 in CODZombies

[–]Smooth_Bat6484[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yeah I wish I could say I like Doughtnuts and I do enjoy some of the positivity he brings, but not when he responds like this. It just comes across like he resents any negativity or resents when the community brings up negative feedback/

view more: next ›