WHERE WERE YOU WHEN CALL OF DUTY BECAME GOTY AGAIN?
>take a day off work to play
>only one day
>>315600919
>hidden plots
Yeah, all of them.
>Perfect 100 score game
>Has cons
Good job.
>>315601065
It is called growing up anon and work to earn your money
>>315601415
>growing up
>writing reviews for video games
here is one thing that may be controversial, and I’d be remiss if I did not address it. The female characters in the campaign mode, both the player and enemy soldiers, may disturb some. The role of fighter is not gender-specific, and while initially I was shocked that I was hearing women’s voices calling for my head, it is truly a gender bias to think that, given the way our societies have evolved would not have female troops in the later part of this century. I applaud the team for bringing a realism to the game where not everyone is willing to tread.
>>315601415
not him but you missed the joke bud
so what rinky dick just founded yesterday blog site is this from?
goty is SUPER MARIO BROS 2 BABYYYYYY!
>>315600919
>two campaigns
>100/100 GOTYAY
>lists cons
Okay, Mr. Reviewer. How much did they pay you?
>>315601738
WE HAVE THEM NOW YOU FUCKNUT
>>315601738
here's your reply
>>315604602
There was never a game without cons.
If the pros are so great they outweight the cons, and if the cons are also not gamebreaking, then it is perfectly justificable.
Just because it is a CoD game does not mean that it isn't actualy a good game.
I hate CoD, took a shot at the Beta because why the fuck not, loved it, bought it.
Last CoD I bought was CoD 2.
I'm poor and only have a PS3. Am I missing something if I get it for that console? will the multiplayer be ded?
>>315600919
>a step forward with zombies
holy shit
>>315600919
>>315609706
Link.
>>315610071
It's literally on the front of the website, go get it yourself lazy fuck.
>>315600919
>100/100
>Literally perfect
>Cons
>>315610268
10/10 has never meant literally perfect in video game reviews. How do people not know that yet? It's a goddamn review, the score isn't objective, it's subjective to the amount of fun the reviewer had with the game.
>>315607307
>There was never a game without cons.
No, marketer, they're attacking dumb reviewers who don't seem to understand that 10/10 is meant to mean it's flawless so there should never bee a 10/10 result, not your shit game.
>>315607307
A perfect score means there were no mistakes you total spaz.
>>315610341
>The reviewer subjectively thought it was flawless
>Continues to list their subjective cons
>>315610452
He obviously didn't think it was flawless since he listed cons, you brain damaged little retard. Apparently he just didn't feel like the cons were big enough to subtract from the fun he was having.
>>315609706
>2.5k people are watching Austin fat fuck sjw Walker stream
>>315607307
>There was never a game without cons.
WHat cons do F-Zero GX or REmake have? Besides the thin arguments of difficulty for GX and the "bad" controls of REmake that have been debunked as a valid argument a million times over.
>>315610341
>10/10 has never meant literally perfect in video game reviews.
I think they start teaching math in the 3rd grade. Dont worry you'll get there some day.
>>315610518
If they didn't subtract from his fun then why were they cons?
>Perfect score
>"He obviously didn't think it was flawless"
>I'm the brain damaged one
>>315601415
the joke is that you can beat it in one day off you retard
>>315610568
>subjective rating scales
>math
My god could you be any more smug and retarded at the same time
>>315601415
>professional opinion giver
>>315600919I was actually pretty hyped for BO3
>>315610568
Oh I know my fractions, but if you'd paid any attention to video game reviews in the past 20 years, you'd know what the trend is. Plenty of flawed games get 10/10's all the time. It's so common now that anyone with half a brain has come to realize it doesn't mean a flawless, perfect little gem like it might mean in, say, the movie industry.
>>315600919
Literally Who?
>>315610341
Thank you for contributing to everything wrong with video games.
>>315610667
>Subjective perfection with subjective cons
Keep digging, anon.
>>315610613
How about for the sake of objectivity and transparency as those cons might be more serious to players who are not him?
Marketers arnt even trying to be subtle anymore.
>>315610772
Anon you just claimed that such a scale was math because it has numbers in it, whatever you're saying next will be completely ignored because you've outed yourself as a fucking mongoloid
I'm also not the first guy
>>315610780
>Objectively subjective objective cons in the objectively subjective perfect game
>>315610765
By explaining to /v/ that subjective rating scales are not some objective rule of nature?
The score just says 100, not 100/100 or 10/10, how do you guys know that this is actually a perfect score?
Objective should be wordfiltered to subjective and vice-versa
It'd improve the correct usages of these words on this board by about 93%
>>315610930
By thinking perfection can be obtained, even subjectively, especially when the reviewer goes on to list their cons you literal child.
>>315610341
you are so wrong it hurts. Every respctable magazine I've ever read never gave a game 100/100, 100%, 10/10 etc, because that's just a theoretical score that can never be achieved.
Because the 100 scale is a rigid measuring scale with wich you're trying to express the most objective view you can have a for a game you tested.
You are what's wrong with vidya today, Anon.
>>315601187
This. By definition, perfection cannot have flaws
>>315611054
>By thinking perfection can be obtained
I read 'phenomenal', not 'perfect', but maybe there's schmutz on my glasses or something
> even subjectively, especially when the reviewer goes on to list their cons you literal child.
This score means 'I think it deserves 100 points on my subjective rating scale'. Nothing more, nothing less. Every other interpretation you make is on your side.
>>315611117
Good thing a 100/100 doesn't mean perfect.
>worse campaign than Halo 5
>didn't receive half the flak for it
>>315611107
Point me to one of your magazines anon, because I've seen 10/10s literally everywhere.
>>315611107
>Because the 100 scale is a rigid measuring scale with wich you're trying to express the most objective view you can have a for a game you tested.
Source
>>315601187
You are like that English teacher that never gives A grades to students, because there is always room for improvement.
>>315611159
>He thinks it's a perfect game
>Lists cons he found in the game
>>315610364
It doesn't mean flawless, it means "closer to being flawless than it is to being 90% flawless."
>I'm taking the day off work boss
>why?!
>I-I want to play video games
>huh? I didn't catch that
>I-I want to play c-call of duty
>Oh, ok
Expect a termination notice the next day.
>>315611249
>perfect
Do you even read the posts you respond to
>>315610341
While it is true that 100/100 doesn't mean it's perfect, it is still stupid as hell to give it that score and then mention cons.
The bigger the score number the more it should take to get a full score - more games would get 5/5 than 100/100, and a 5/5 game can be forgiven for having more flaws than a 100/100 game.
>>315610364
And then we have a rating scale of 10 where 10 is unachievable since objectively perfect is not reachable when talking about subjective topics.
BVut what about 9? When is it flawless enough to deserve 9? I see these graphical bugs in Zelda OOT, surely that's enough to decrease it to a 7, no? Surely it doesn't deserver the near-perfection on 9. Since we're staying objective here.
>>315611359
A 5/5 game is an 100/100 game, just expressed differently
>>315611292
>100/100
>Full points in every department
>No flaws
>Not perfect
>>315611359
>more games would get 5/5 than 100/100
>more games would get a 1 than a 1
>>315611434
>Do you even read the posts you respond to
>Do you even read the posts you respond to
>This score means 'I think it deserves 100 points on my subjective rating scale'. Nothing more, nothing less. Every other interpretation you make is on your side.
>This score means 'I think it deserves 100 points on my subjective rating scale'. Nothing more, nothing less. Every other interpretation you make is on your side.
>Do you even read the posts you respond to
>>315611434
You're the only one saying it has no flaws. The reviewer himself states it has flaws. He never states it's perfect.
This is all in your autism, sorry to say.
>>315611191
It's just German magazines, like PC Action, the good old Big N and Gamestar before they became shit.
>>315611225
literally every issue of the magazines listed above where they had a page explaining their respective rating systems.
>>315611419
If it's flawless enough to deserve a 9 then it obviously wouldn't have graphical bugs and the reviewer would be a worthless hack, you mong.
>>315611480
>I think this game has no flaws, thus no points will be deducted from it's score.
>These are the flaws I found
>tfw you get what 10/10 with cons means in the real world and don't get so worked up about it that you take it to a Malaysian origami board
It's a good feeling.
>>315611518
>The reviewer himself states it has flaws
That's literally what this shitfest is about you dumbass.
>>315611426
>>315611463
But it's not, a 4/5 is like an 80/100, unless they use decimals you have no in-between from 80 to 100, meaning that it's easy to see a 5/5 as a rounded off 90/100.
>>315611534
You really don't see the flaws in that thinking?
There is no objective measurement system to grade video games. How the fuck would that even work? Everyone prefers differnt things, everyone expects different. things. Is a game not having x a flaw to deduct points for? Is bug x enough to reduce it by 1 point? What about this wooden dialogue, surely that's another point gone? But anon 2 things the dialogue is good, so what now?
Now in comparison. Game 1 look nice, but I think game 2 looks nicer, thus game 1 can never have more score than game 2. Other people think game 2 has vastly better gameplay though, but I disagree. What now?
It's all subjective based on the feelings of the reviewer. You can't evaluate the mechanics and many different aspects of video games with simple fucking numbers
>>315611426
That's simply not true. A 5/5 game might be as low as 90% on a truly continuous scale. 100/100 would have to be at least 99.5%. The finer the level of measurement, the more accurate the value. If a review outlet only gives "yes/no" scores, is a "yes" the same as 100%?
>>315611643
You gonna make up some stories about things you discussed with your fake friends to go along with your high horse stance just because you got BTFO this hard?
>>315611593
How does it feel to have severe autism?
Genuinely curious.
>>315611241
>he never got the A
somebody has downs
>>315611768
Poor anon can only read one post in a thread and then keeps responding to people about the initial point without considering the arguments made, spare him for he's a dim one
>>315611768
>>315611829
How does it feel to ad hominem because you have no points to argue with due to retardation.
Try to form it into words, I know it can be a challenge.
>>315611760
How did I get BTFO? That was my first post in the thread, chief.
>more games will get 3/5 than 60/100
>more games will get 0.6 than 0.6
>>315611894
>N-Not him!
Nice, haven't seen this backpeddling before.
>>315611872
>ad hominem
No anon, I'm flat out insulting you because you're too fucking retarded to argue with since you just ignore what the other side writes to spam your dribble
Have fun being a fucking mongoloid
>>315611426
Nope.
True, they're both perfect scores, in a completely objective way. We know the limit to how high we can score and we've reached it - the scores can't get any more full/perfect.
But the game itself isn't necessarily perfect, as games are very subjective things.
A 5/5 game has gotten full scores, but all it means is that it ended up in the last of the available scores. There are five options: 1/5, 2/5, 3/5, 4/5 and 5/5 (and perhaps 0/5, I guess). Many games might end up as being a bit above a 4/5, but not perfect, and end up with a 5/5 score, as it's the closest to what the reviewer thought.
In a 10/10 rating it could also be a 9/10, giving the reviewer more flexibility to give his score.
And a 100/100 rating would give him the opportunity to give it 95/100 if he wanted.
Look at it this way. What if the rating went 1/2 and 2/2. Those were the only options. Are you really saying that a 2/2 game is exactly as good as a 1000/1000 game? They both got the best score available, but it doesn't mean the reviewer thought they were equally good.
>>315611698
>>315611740
Since when do /5 scales not allow decimals?
Their is also the strange issue of acting like the numerical score of a review is at all based on any sort of quantatative data. A review score is just an unscientific representation of the subjective feelings of a reviewer.
>>315600919
I saw this review on stream.
>>315611796
That was not the point of his post.
>>315612025
>Since when do /5 scales not allow decimals?
It's got nothing to do with "allowing" it's got everything to do with choosing if they want to or not.
>>315611957
>I reject reality and substitute with one that fits my narrative
In your defence, 4chan was MADE for people like you.
I'm pretty hyped for the game myself, but this is just blatant shilling
>perfect score
>flaws
And before that autist gives me the whole "It's not perfect" spiel, I can't get a couple questions wrong on a test and still get a perfect score
>>315611990
You just write the same shit every post.
>It's his subjective review so he's allowed to claim it's perfect
>But it's also an objective review that's why he listed cons that he doesn't think are cons since he thinks the game is flawless
Your replies keep going in circles so there's no need to bother following you around when I can just cut down the center.
>>315612121
>I reject reality and substitute with one that fits my narrative
Yes, yes you do >>315611643
>>315612035
His post is bullshit anyway.
You can't have a flawless game with flaws.
>>315612279
>>But it's also an objective review
Link to me saying that, anon
I know your reading comprehension fucking sucks tiny diucks but it can't be this bad
>>315612276
>I can't get a couple questions wrong on a test and still get a perfect score
Except you can, depending on the number of questions..
>>315612353
>>315610780
>inb4 "that's not me"
>>315612405
No, you can't. If you get a single question wrong on a test it's impossible to get a 100/100 score, moron.
>>315611175
How much would "perfect" be rated as then? Over 100/100?
EDGE got it right with their scoring system
1 = one
2 = two
.
.
.
10 = 10
As they say, it's arbitary and it's subjective so a 10/10 just means that it's a damn fine game regardless of flaws.
It's their score system so they make up their rules and stick with it.Having said that, one of my old tutors worked for Westwood and they paid EDGE for a cover of Dune and a high score so make of that what you will
>>315612450
>>315612450
>For the sake of objectivity
>Same as purely objective.
Autism confirmed, you only see what you want to see so it fits your narrative, you're probably the same type of person that thinks my favorite game = Best game ever made because you can't see anything from anyone else's point of view, a legitimate symptom of autism.
>>315612450
That's not him and I stand by it. He objectively states flaws he found that didn't affect his overall (subjective) opinion of the game. What's wrong with that?
>>315612498
what if there were bonus questions that add to the base score but rules stimpulate that it can't go over 100?
>>315612520
>perfect
>video games or other media
What
Surely you don't mean 'objectively perfect'
Because that would be silly
>>315612569
Then I'll ask again.
Why does he have cons in his subjectively flawless game?
>>315612276
But you can have a flawed knowledge of what the test is about and still get a perfect score. Furthermore, if the test is an essay or similar, you could write an essay that is not perfect, but is closer to being perfect than to being nineteen twentieths perfect, and thus get a perfect score.
>>315612020
>Are you really saying that a 2/2 game is exactly as good as a 1000/1000 game?
Close enough, yes. Game scores aren't based on hard numerical data
>>315604085
you could even say it's DOUBLE the campaigns.
>>315612569
I'm the "not-YOU" in that. I gave up replying to him at that point. The man's a chimp.
>>315612620
anon....
>>315612631
No, but if something better than BO3 or whatever else is rated 100/100 pops up, you can only rate it up to BO3/whatever-standards.
>All the bait in this thread being responded to
You dumb cunts should have just stopped replying when they said 100/100 wasn't perfect. They couldn't have been more obvious.
>>315612639
>flawless
You should really stop reading words in places where they aren't
He doesn't say the game is flawless or perfect or whatever other term you imagined, he said it's phenomenal, as in he thought it was great enough to deserve 100 points on his scale. This does not mean that he thinks the game deserves 100 objective points on the grand infallible scale of the rules of nature, or something.
I'd actually agree that full marks shouldn't be given out lightly because it devalues that reviewers scale, but he can do so if he wishes, because, once again, shit's subjective. If you think his rating is wrong, all you have to do is mentally classify him as someone not competent enough to review vidya and never read him again.
>>315612825
What? I'm just throwing out a hypothetical question. I don't know the American system but isn't that what "extra-credit" questions are? Surely if you don't answer them, but answered everything else you'd get a GPA of...whatever the max is, but if you answered the extra credit stuff you can go over the maximum?
Reading that back it makes no sense but whatever.
>>315612620
We aren't playing what ifs, and you know that.
>>315612867
Yeah that's a problem with these scales, they don't really work retroactively. That's why they're really only an opinion frozen in time. Like, if they were supposed to be objective or anythingt, then they should continuously be updated since new games come out that might surpass older ones in certain departments, especially tech ones. In 100 years we most likely have games that let our current masterpieces look like a childs toy
Cowadoody has never been and will never be GOTY.
Candy crush beats it hands down in popularity, and their target audience is the same
>>315612923
I'm not reading words where they aren't, I'm reading numbers where they are, 100/100. Flawless, which is what 100/100 represents.
He thought it was great enough that it had no flaws, yet he can recognize the flaws it has, it's a complete contradiction and if he had just put 95/100 then it would all be fine.
So why didn't he? 95/100 is phenomenal, that's a great score.
>>315612981
But we do, anon
In >>315612498 you claimed that as soon as you get a question wrong, you can't get full score anyome. Anon made the valid counterargument of 'bonus' question, usually about topics not really on the curicculum, but those can still add to the maximum score
>>315613107
Yeah, exactly, is there any website/reviewer that does this?
>>315612981
ok, Dad. It's an inane discussion. Another /v/ debate where you have to fall on one side or the other - the use of "literally" or just pedentry taken to (il)logical extremes.
Anyone playing Project Zero at the minute? Mother fucking doll shrine, Jesus
>>315612910
That's some nice fucking bait.
>>315610341
Even if I was a reviewer giving my subjective opinion I'd understand that 10/10 means flawless and not give that score unless I actually played a flawless game.
>>315613185
You're autistic dude, stop typing your ramblings
>>315613215
No, it's not valid, it's literally just spewing shit out in a desperate attempt to be correct. You're basically pulling a "that kid"
>rats can't fly
>WHAT IF A BIRD PICKED ONE UP, THE RAT IS FLYING HAHAHA I'M RIGHT
You right now desu senpai
>>315613302
You need to work on your reliance on ad hominems. It seriously gives off the air that you just give up on your argument because you have no counter points.
>>315613185
But you're interpreting the numbers wrong. 100/100 on a maths test and 100/100 on a random rewievers scale for some random piece of media don't really mean the same thing [insert subjective......]
But it's alright, we can settle this argument now. It'd be cool if he had given the game some number below 100, but he didn't, shit happens, ignore that guy from now on
>>315612620
This is actually my logic exam from last week. Didn't get any of the proofs right, and still ended up with 9.6/10. What a fucking joke.
/blog
>>315613292
And you're entirely justified in thinking that. Doesn't mean everyone else thinks like that. It'ssubjective.
>>315613246
I doubt it, that must be a fuckload of work. Maybe if they only restricted themselves to a number of popular games, like only AA and AAA games or something
>>315613406
I'm not that dude, I've literally called you autistic in every single post I've made because you're a fucking moron with no sense of any mindset outside of your own.
You're an autistic brat mad on the internet because a game you don't like got a 100
>>315613360
But anon, I personally have been in the situation where I got full marks on a test despite getting some regular questions wrong. Whast now? Seems like the statement you deemed a fact was actually not a fact
>>315613443
It's still a scale, if they're going to appropriate maths to try and get their opinion across then they should abide by it's logic. If they can't even do that then they should abandon it and stick to "Great/Good/Alright/etc"
>>315613569
>I never had any argument I just wanted to come into this thread to call someone names
Pretty pathetic to be honest
>>315613631
It's not math though
Not everything with numbers in it is math
>>315613581
Prove you were in that situation. Burden of proof is on you.
>>315613631
>Pretty pathetic to be honest
Not as pathetic as you.
I'm not the one shitting up an entire thread because I think my personal tastes are the bar for anyone to have a meaningful conversation, dickhead.
Faggot
Queer.
Does this upset you?
I'm calling you names autismo.
>>315613678
Annnnnnd I'm done. Congrats, you out autismed me with your genuine idiocy.
>>315613631
I don't think you know what math is, anon
your trolling is, literally,11/10.but not perfect
>>315613764
I never said anything about my taste in this thread, shitposter. All of my arguments have been about the lack of logic behind something being perfect but having flaws.
Get your bf's crotch out of your face so you can actually read.
>>315613878
>My personal view on logic somehow makes them more valid than anyone elses.
Wrong, fag, there's a reason said guy is a reviewer and you're bitching on a forum about how much better you are than him at it.
>>315613740
>this fucking guy
No anon, I'm not going to gdig out my 5th grade exam to prove something obvious to a random guy on a philipinese crab catching chalkboard
But I know that I'm right and you're smug because you think you're right so it's cool, we both win!
>>315614072
>there's a reason said guy is a reviewer
Yeah because he couldn't get a spot in any job with qualifications.
>>315613776
Are you retarded? Do you genuinely believe everything with numbers in it is maths? Have you even left elementary scool yet?
>>315614184
But you're the one vying for his job?
>>315614281
>If you point out the hole in the ship you must want to be captain so bad
Are you vying for my job by disagreeing with me? I wouldn't blame you, it's pretty good.
>>315614372
A proper analogy would be that you're bitching about how the ship is run, because if there was a hole, he'd be out of a job.
Sorry to tell you this but your opinion means jack shit in the real world.
Stay angry.
>>315614372
>The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
>>315614465
Hey, just like you entirely as a person.
No wonder you're so eager to point out what's meaningless, you just want something to relate to.
Despite his shit taste in games(actually liking Cawadoody), he isn't some young cunt/dick looking for a handout and sucking up to his boss to capitalize on that ad-money.
>>315614579
>Goes on an autistic rant
>Uses smug images to copycat me because he's a brainless simp
>Repeats my insults like a fucking 12 year old.
We're done here, everyone already had a laff at you.
>>315614715
>I invented smug animu reaction images
>lmao copycat!
Shouldn't you be trying harder at things that matter so much to you?
>cawadoody
>>315600919
I was like 14 years old and remember i enjoyed Call of Duty a lot. 10/10 GOTY i totally agree.
One of the best games of my childhood, indeed.
New Cowadoody actually doesn't look half bad.
>>315616258
>ww2 shooter will never be a thing again
hurts
GOTY
O
T
Y
>>315618895
Just replay an old one, idiot
A new one couldn't add anything to the genre at this point anyway because it's all been done a thousand times (which is why we got tired of them in the first place)
>>315610560
>F-Zero GX
Poor machine balance and physics glitches
>>315603921
Ocean?
you can tell they weren't lazy at all :^)
amazing AI
>>315601415
>look at me i'm 15 and I have a job at mcdonalds i have to work to get paid i'm so proud of how hard i have to work ;););)
>>315620024
>the people cant be bothered to even look up from their phones
kek
Does Blops 3 have a barebones playlist? That's all I played on Blops 1.
Everyone should just use a 1-5 point system or none at all.
>>315620384
It's a training simulation, those people aren't real.
>>315601187
>>315611117
It got a 99.9 out of 100, then they rounded up.
>>315600919
Wow this game looks terrible.
CoD just keeps getting worse year by year. This is worse than Ghosts was.
>>315621167
Movies get a long fine with 1-5. Everyone knows intuitively what a 5 star movie is and there's no drama, whereas everyone freaks out when 10's or 100's are given out as it looks like the game is being portrayed as perfect and theres endless bitching about one game getting a 0.1 higher score than another.
>>315620024
is this part of their everyday trip while traveling to their offices?
why isn't any of the passengers showing even the slightest emotion?
Good rating system
>Hey this movie has five stars it must be great lets go see it
Bad rating system
>Hey this game is 100/100 it surely can't be perfect, what the fuck is wrong with these journos, why did my favourite game get a 95 and this trash got a 100!?
SAYING THE GAME IS 100/100 AND LISTING FLAWS IS IDIOTIC.
BY GIVING IT 100/100, YOU ARE SUGGESTING TWO THINGS.
>1. THAT YOUR RATING SYSTEM IS SOMEHOW DETACHED FROM YOUR ACTUAL REVIEW, MEANING THE RATING SYSTEM IS FUCKING USELESS
>2. THAT YOUR CONS AREN'T REALLY CONS, BUT YOU NEEDED SOMETHING TO FILL THE BOX ON YOUR AWFUL FORMAT.
GIVING SOMETHING 100/100 MEANS THAT IN THE HYPOTHETICAL INSTANCE THAT THE PERFECT GAME DID ACTUALLY COME ALONG, IT'D HAVE THE SAME SCORE AS A GAME WITH CONS - ONCE AGAIN MEANING THAT YOUR RATING SYSTEM IS USELESS
>I RATE MY POST 100/100 DESPITE ITS FLAWS, IF YOU ARGUE YOU ARE OBJECTIVELY WRONG.
>>315611524
>PC Action
My nigga.
Those guys knew how to rate. Could give their personal GOTY a modest score if it had flaws and wasn't for everybody.
>>315620329
Its really weird to me how fucked the occupations of /v/irgins are. I mean, I work in a cab company but I'm able to pull in 200-300 a day. I saw thread the other day where people were comparing how many days they needed to work to buy one 60 dollar game.
Like holy shit.
>>315600919
>deep storytelling
HAHAAHAHHA
>>315600919
Counting down to the release of "Call of Duty 14: Black Ops IV"
Cannot take this critic seriously considering this crap, obviously a shill.
>>315623679
It's almost like some people are at different stages of their career or higher learning with different expenses like mortgages/rent, dependents like children etc.
>>315623712
I've never played a COD game but I've always heard people say the single player stories are pretty good. I don't know about deep, but good.
>>315624801
wage slave spotted
>>315624942
They are equivalent to a popcorn flick.
Mindless fun that you forget immediately once you finish the game, but its still fun.
>>315618895
>Make a WW2 flashback level
>Don't give the Germans and Americans period accurate weapons
Treyarch everyone
>>315612028
lol "Fallout 4 best game ever", not even out yet. this is why gaming will never be taken seriously.
