Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Call of Duty: World at War


Freeze

Recommended Posts

Decent game, in desperate need of a patch though.

-Terrible spawn system

-Lots of glitches to get under maps

-Weapons not well balanced

Nazi Zombies is addicting and awesome, though.

The bad spawns won't change. It is like that on Xbox360 too and the last CoD was like that also (4).

Glitches are in all games, takes a short time before they all figure it out, usually things don't get patched.

And the early weapons do suck (if it's the same as 360). I'm level 36 and I really only like the SMG's, the rest are trash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bad spawns won't change. It is like that on Xbox360 too and the last CoD was like that also (4).

Glitches are in all games, takes a short time before they all figure it out, usually things don't get patched.

And the early weapons do suck (if it's the same as 360). I'm level 36 and I really only like the SMG's, the rest are trash.

4 wasn't as bad as 5 when it comes to spawns, I've never been killed from spawn 5-6 times in a row in TDM.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 wasn't as bad as 5 when it comes to spawns, I've never been killed from spawn 5-6 times in a row in TDM.

No, not as bad, however I played online PC games in the 90's that had better spawn points than these "NextGen" consoles do. It's something these guys always overlook it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I was watching a YouTube and it was said that scout and GM insider types were saying the NIL had killed rounds 4-7. I don’t know that I buy it, seems like it might for a year or maybe two but then those guys have to move on.  NCAA is apparently about to give 5 years of eligibility. It is gonna skew those entrants older maybe.   
    • Miller being less raw and more pro ready makes sense of why they picked him. With us having a capable starter in Walker the lower floor higher ceiling player makes sense for us as well. I agree with that. 
    • I'm from Michigan and have had this discussion with my Lions friends, and they all agree with me, they were never going to take Freeling over Miller.  As, yes, you are correct, they could have left Sewell at RT and taken Freeling, but they are in a SB contention window right now. An OL with Freeling at LT and Sewell at RT is not as strong as Sewell at LT and Miller at RT would be for this upcoming season and likely at least next year as well. 5 years it could be looked back upon as a long term "mistake" to take Miller over Freeling, but for a franchise like the Lions, you can't worry about the long term when you have current SB aspirations.  It's all about maximizing their current SB window over the next 1-3 years. And it's not about style, it's about day 1 readiness, and a lot of "experts" aren't even sure if Freeling is ready to play Week 1 yet at the position he's used to, let alone switching to a side he hasn't played before, but a career starting RT is going to be more than ready to fill that role for them Week 1. I'm 100% convinced that if our draft positioning was swapped, we'd have still taken Freeling, they'd have still taken Miller, and both teams would have got the OT that they preferred due to what each team needs right now and what their current realistic aspirations are for the 2026 season. We're in a position where we can let our drafted OT sit and learn for a bit, they needed a week 1 starter, for me that's where this discussion becomes very easy to understand why each team took the player they did.
×
×
  • Create New...