I see I've come late to the COD-bashing party, as usual. Really people?

Whether you admit it or not, COD does take some level of skill - how else would I be able to consistently beat some players, or get consistently beaten by others, if it did not? It may not require the dedication of something like Counterstrike, but you can't be garbage at playing and do great at the same time.

And at one of the other above comments, COD is for "non-gamers" who like to think they know everything? Hardly. Just because someone has an interest in another type of game you don't, doesn't mean they're any less intelligent.

As for camping and noob-tubing, those are playstyle choices that I don't think really qualify as "skills", and while annoying both are easily countered. Campers are always going to be vulnerable to grenades/flashbangs/noobtubes, and usually are not much of a problem. As for noobtubes, while they were admittedly a problem in MW2, in MW3 they were nerfed significantly and I hardly ever see them being used.

Vari3ty

no one said anything about CoD not being fun, it just doesnt require much skill, once again still a fun game.

skill in CoD?:lol:

almasdeathchild

thats what i said...lol

awwww i had hoped some of gamespots resident conspiracy theorists would weigh in on this thread....guess not.

Well nothing in call of duty is really skill based per say.... so compared to everything else in that game i see it as no worse.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

Why would he mention the vikings in his book? The vikings had nothing to do with what he was describing. Or are you under the silly impression that "discovery" is a one time only thing that only one person can possibly be credited for?

And that book is crap. Historians around the world have pretty much universally dismissed his book as a complete fabrication.

Oleg_Huzwog

Well vikings are relevant because this guy claimed that the Chinese were the first old world group to land in the Americas(aside from the originals of course).

Ah, well remember this is the same author who also claimed that Atlantis was real and that they too discovered America... so yeah, feel free to ignore just about everything that guy wrote.

Well i knew he was crazy, i just didn't know how dumb he was.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Even then there's a fair amount of evidence to suggestthat the native population of North America cross a land bridge to get there in the first place. But yeah American was known of well before the 1400's, it just wasn't common knowledge or successfully settled by those from the "old continents" until then.Storm_Marine

I don't see that as up for debate, how else would they have gotten there?

Spaceships.

That's what the new HISTORY Chanel keeps trying to tell me.

Why would he mention the vikings in his book? The vikings had nothing to do with what he was describing. Or are you under the silly impression that "discovery" is a one time only thing that only one person can possibly be credited for?

And that book is crap. Historians around the world have pretty much universally dismissed his book as a complete fabrication.

Oleg_Huzwog

Well vikings are relevant because this guy claimed that the Chinese were the first old world group to land in the Americas(aside from the originals of course).

Even then there's a fair amount of evidence to suggestthat the native population of North America cross a land bridge to get there in the first place. But yeah American was known of well before the 1400's, it just wasn't common knowledge or successfully settled by those from the "old continents" until then.Ace6301

I don't see that as up for debate, how else would they have gotten there?

So i just finished reading 1421 the year china discovered America, and in this book the author goes on and on about how china supposedly china landed in America in 1421 AD , years before Columbus. Now that's all fine and good, however, THE VIKINGS LANDED IN AMERICA DURING THE 10TH CENTURY AD!!!!!!!

How does someone who spent so much time working on a theory completely overlook such commonplace knowledge???

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="PrototypeTheKid"] I nevero nce stated that stuff doesn't exist, I stated simply that the earth is in fact hollow/flat and there's mountains of evidence to back this up.PrototypeTheKid

that doesnt matter.

if you say the earth is flat, that other stuff CANTexist.

or is math and physics a hoax too?

OK 1 im an engineer, with a masters in astronautical engineering, who majored in both Physics and variose schools of math.

2 none of your points make any sense or are straw man arguments, so no point in debating them.