No, it isnt Halo’s fault that BF 2042 dodnt sell well, the game just stinks!

It’s interesting to see EA and Dice place blame on Microsoft’s release of Halo Infinite for Battlefield 2042’s poor sales and even poorer player count. Talk about not accepting responsibility for your actions.   Video games are a giant industry and with any company involved, there are bound to be some bad products and Battlefield 2042 is no exception. The game isn’t great. I admit that I had high hopes for a great game, but alas, those hopes were crushed by a lack of content and a plague of bugs.   Battlefield 2042 was in development for a long time and to see such a lack of content is mind blowing. If you thought Call of Duty Vanguard was disappointing (which it is…), well I personally found Battlefield 2042 to be even more so. Its no wonder there is a petition with over 200k signatures already, to get EA to refund unsatisfied consumers that purchased the game.   In all reality, I know I’m not getting my money back, but damn it all, this game isn’t good and EA really needs to own that. Now I know the company is trying reiterate what they said and put a spin on it, but the company needs to wake up and create a decent product from Battlefield before the franchise is cursed forever!   I really don’t enjoy having to rag on a game, but it was so bad, I didn’t write a review for it because I didn’t want to express my opinion on it. Personally, I think this is the worst entry in the series that I have played. It isn’t innovative and it feels like it was taken out of the oven way too early. I just don’t understand what they did all these years while developing this game. It isn’t even that fun. It just sucks to play. Even when I’m having the best matches of my life, I don’t really recognize it because the crapiness is distracting me from any real entertainment.   All of this of course is just my opinion and if you don’t agree with me, that’s cool. I mean no disrespect, but this is just how I feel about it. I find it frustrating no one has stepped up and admitted they made a huge mistake, but of course that probably won’t happen. If we want better games, we need to find a way to make a change together. Maybe it’s time EA got bought out by another company and reworked into a decent game publisher again. After all, EA execs make the final call in end.   What do you think about the EA allowing the buck to be passed over to Halo Infinite? They can blame sales all they want, but how does that affect the quality of an already finished product? Let’s discuss! As always, thanks for reading!  

The Gamepocalypse: Are Single-Player Games Dying?

I’d like to start this article by being honest with you readers. The truth, is that I don’t like multiplayer. I started playing games when I was a kid and I continue to play games to this day for one simple reason: to immerse myself in a story and a world that isn’t my own. For me, the only way to do that is in a game with an amazing story and a well-crafted world. I know I’m not the only one either, but my friends, our beloved single-player is in danger. Which brings me to the question of the day: are single-player games dying?. It’s a scary thought, but one that has been brought up more times than I’d care to count. Today we face the beast head on and find out once and for all if our beloved way of gaming is dying. Echoes in Time: Industry Expert Predictions From Recent Years Industry experts have already tackled this subject in the past, and the trend wasn’t good. Back in 2011 during the Game Developer’s Conference, Mark Cerny Gave journalists a heart attack when he said “the traditional single-player experience will be gone in three years. Right now you sit in your living room and you’re playing a game by yourself. We call it the sp mission, or the single-player campaign. In a world with Facebook, I just don’t think that’s going to last.” This comment came during a time where games that had no business having multiplayer (Bioshock, God of War, etc) were receiving shoehorned multiplayer modes that ultimately detracted from the single-player experience. Meanwhile, the opposite seemed to be true of games like Call of Duty and Battlefield. These games were 90% multiplayer and 10% single-player in the form of a blockbuster campaign that lasted an average of 4 hours. Not even a day after Mark Cerny’s comment, a contractor for Activision by the name of Keith Fuller said in an interview with CNN that “90 percent of players who start your game will never see the end of it unless they watch a clip on YouTube.” Now that opens an entirely different discussion on Let’s plays, but we’ll cover that another time. Also I would like to point out that Activision would blame the gamers for a problem they helped create. As more and more developers felt the pressure to put multiplayer in their games, that responsibility fell to the single-player team. Instead of devoting 100% effort into the story of the game, now teams were split and the overall quality suffered as a result. To try and combat that, sometimes the multiplayer was developed by an entirely different team which caused even worse differences between the single-player and multiplayer quality. Speaking of corporate giants who like to make sweeping decisions, if you look at EA, they have the same mindset, albeit a little less “multiplayer only.” They, like Ubisoft are more interested in “connected experiences” where you’re always online in some way, shape or form. … Read More