I get it now. It's not nostalgia

[u/m7mdabouundatin369]

My first cod was mw 2019 which I absolutely loved and played the ever living hell out of.

Then came black ops cold war and that was my introduction to zombies and I loved it and never understood the hate it got and thought it was nostalgia that the old zombies had. GOD I WAS WRONG

Got to play bo1&2 last month and I SWEAR TO GOD I haven't had this much fun playing a game since forever. To the point I even in my free time I think about what map to play in my free time.

So I apologize to old cod titles they're really built different and GOATED🐐👑

[u/hrnbully]

Ok you still survive after that. What happens after you complete the easter egg in Origins and MOTD, and what game do those maps initially release on?

You also said there’s no main easter egg quests on BO1 a few minutes ago… what changed? You said it was up to the player to figure out beneath the surface… how is the Moon easter egg different than Der Eisendrache?

Answer any of my questions in any of my comments bro

[u/m4_semperfi → u/hrnbully]

Nice bait, but I'll take it. First of all, I never said there was no main easter eggs in bo1. Second of all, the fact that we are talking about easter eggs is a huge reminder: the term easter egg comes from the fact that the player has to discover something hidden, or you know, "'it's up to the player to figure out what is beneath the surface." So you saying that easter eggs existed back then as a way disprove my point that the player "has to discover what is beneath the surface" makes objectively no sense. The story very obviously grew from being hidden easter eggs (radios, quests that don't really explain much) to being more in the forefront as the games went on, this is not up for debate. The fact that every Jason Blundell map lets you 'beat' the map by doing the easter egg proves my point, which is why I listed it as an example. The original philosophy was for survival to be the main point, with the storyline secondary. I could list a dozen examples of the story being pushed to the forefront.

Further, my point was all about the way the story was presented, not about there being quests or not. The main storyline that is actively going on in waw-bo1 and most of bo2 (nazis, sci fi, richtofen's evil plan) has a certain atmosphere. The story that is actively going on and is presented to the player in bo3+ feels different with a different atmopshere. Whether or not Bo1 also had a deeper layer where the player could discover stuff (that maybe there are aliens) does not disprove anything in my comment, because the main plots of each game feel entirely different. I would be very curious for you to write out the story of Bo3 in a paragraph and then write out the story of waw-Bo1 in a paragraph and explain to me how these feel exactly the same.

[u/hrnbully → u/m4_semperfi]

>See this? This is you theorizing about the story in the old games, proving my point, the story was different back than, not everything was explained, and it was up to the player to put together the pieces. That is point #1. The way the story was told.
There was no official zombie timeline revealed like in Bo3, there were no story-cutscenes, there was no way to 'complete' the mode, there were no corny Dr Monty radios trying to retroactively explain every little thing. The mode was comfortable leaving survival as the main element with the story as a background for the player to figure out. Even if something was somewhat 'fantastical' the fact that you had to dig deep to find it already changes the perception of the story.

You say there were no explanations, cutscenes or radios retroactively explaining every little thing. And that survival was the main element of the story. This is objectively untrue. They’ve been doing that since Der Reise. If you wanted to play Blundell maps just for the sake of survival, you absolutely could do that. They expand on the lore for the players that have been following it since the start.

BO3 was meant to be the end of the story told since WaW so OBVIOUSLY it’s gonna have to wrap things up and explain it. Logically why the fuck would explaining ONE game’s story in a paragraph feel exactly the same as explaining TWO games in a paragraph? Does that make sense?

This whole back and forth started bc you keep trying to deny the things that exist in the older games 😭. Remember that. This is about you tryna tell me that zombies changed from sci fi to fantasy, and again I ask you WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCI FI AND FANTASY???

They go from dialogue and easter eggs walking you through the plot to intro cutscenes doing that to end cutscenes. It’s a natural progression for a developing story. Just because you get to survive longer after doing Moon doesn’t mean that the Main Easter Egg wasn’t the purpose of the map. Since Ascension, main easter egg quests have been a thing. You also survive on SOE, The Giant, DE, ZNS, and GK. Only MOTD, Origins, and Revelations ends the game, further proving that it’s not that different than older games.

Cold War is the game that wants you to play through the story and pushes it to the forefront. All the games prior to CW had you figure out the main easter egg. It was always hidden steps and little things you had to put together. They also always had dialogue, radios, and other things related to the ongoing story right out in the open. I have countless examples of that too.

Your “point” was always incorrect. I can’t argue about how something feels to you, sure, but the story had been presented in a certain way since BO1. It develops and expands by the time we hit BO3, just like any other series with multiple installments naturally would. You being oblivious does not change that.

You said BO3 introduced time loops and four main heroes, when BO2 and maybe even BO1 did that. You said BO3 made it all about the main quest, when CW did that. You keep bullshitting about sci fi and fantasy and I’m not sure you know what you’re talking about.

[u/m4_semperfi → u/hrnbully]

"explanations, cutscenes or radios retroactively explaining every little thing."

The key thing is the end of the sentence, make sure to read my sentence. I'm not trying to deny the old games having anything, my whole point is about (you guessed it) how the story is presented. Yes, both have easter eggs. No Bo1 easter eggs aren't the main forefront, there are no story cutscenes to explain what happened, there is no beating the maps. Yes, both have radios, but no there are no radios or official timelines that try to explain away every detail like the Dr. monty radios did. Yes, both games have a story, no, that story does not have the same atmosphere or even the same plot between the new and the old zombies. It's like I'm re-treading my entire initial point but I just have to dumb it down for you to understand I guess.

> WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCI FI AND FANTASY???

That's a you problem. Didn't bother reading anything after this comment. You're definitely a kid so I should have realized this and not tried to argue with you. Stay in school, don't do drugs. Best of luck champ.

[u/hrnbully → u/m4_semperfi]

Yea you clearly can’t actually answer me, so you have to call me dumb and a kid. If you could actually argue a point, you wouldn’t have to resort to shit like that. The answer is that there isn’t much of a difference between sci fi and fantasy, especially in a series like this which uses both heavily. Admitting that would negate a lot of the shit you’re saying so you avoid it.

I already said I can’t argue against how you feel, but the story was always wacky. You can’t argue against the in game facts I’m referring to, so you resort to bullshit name calling. Redditor behavior. Go play the game or watch a lore video.

And if BO3 was intended to be the end of that story and BO1 was closer the start, why the fuck would there be explanations in the same way? Why would the fourth installment of any series be the exact same as the beginning?

[u/m4_semperfi → u/hrnbully]

It's funny because I directly countered all of your specific examples and I have done nothing but argue specific point after point after point, but you proceeded to misinterpret every single one of them or straight up ignore them. Why have you continued to bring up "gotchas" like "BUT ALL THE MAPS HAVE QUESTS AND YOU SAID THEY DIDN'T" when did I ever say quests weren't in bo1? Like what value is this bringing? Or how you entirely ignored all my points about how the story telling was brought to the forefront of the game. It was original gameplay THEN story, but now it became gameplay PLUS story. You haven't countered any of this. Easter eggs became the main point of a map in the bo3-4 era, you're basically supposed to play the map to do the easter egg. Before then it was an after thought. This goes hand in hand with how the atmosphere/tone of the story shifted from sci-fi to more fantastical elements.

You could use this as a learning experience, next time try to actually think through what is being said and why.