Well, my point still remains that no one who knew anything at all about this franchise cared about the singleplayer, regardless of what EA or DICE said about it. It is a "Battlefield" game. And anyone who buys a "Battlefield" game for the singleplayer is an idiot. The multiplayer has always been the most important thing to that franchise. Hell, up until the first "Bad Company" game, it was the ONLY thing for that franchise!Aprilgold said:My point is that your complaining about him reviewing the same exact way he always has. I Don't care if its a sequel to the god given Jesus baby of our industry, the sequel has singleplayer, and its a load of horse shit. EA / Dice have been screwing over PC gamers throughout the whole god damn dev cycle, its a silly thought to thik that the Multiplayer will be around longer past the next sequels multiplayer.
Dice made the fucking game, thus if they built a single player, you can't complain, because they made the fucking thing. Unless YOU have a job in the industry then you would not quite understand their mindset, they made a single player and tried to sell the game off of it. This is a blatant lie since the single player is a giant QTE, you have nothing to argue here. The single player was shit, and the multiplayer is a random experience, it isn't structured past 'is the multiplayer playable?' Which was my point the whole fucking time.
The multiplayer is like a fucking dice roll, you roll and you will either get below a fifteen for a failing match or utter pub stomp or large amounts of trolls / hackers, then if you make it ABOVE it then you have a winning match, then you have to get a eighteen to see if you don't have hackers, EVEN THEN you have to get a natural 20 just to have no problems. The better the match, the less likely it is to enjoy the game.
Even if we take Good Grief, heres a video of them doing their thing on a game.
I chose this video out of their hundreds simply over the fact that this is a example of what I mean. All it takes is one asshole on a 16 player game match to ruin EVERYONE'S time. In Battlefield this can be god damn worse, its like Feeding a Feeder in LoL, you will lose because they just became more powerful then you. In battlefield, if a greifer kills 9 other players in a attack helicopter and crashes into the side of a building, your team just lost 9 players for several minutes because NOW you and your team have a losing disadvantage, its even WORSE if you are winning because since you just lost those people, you are now going to have the blunt force of the attacking team onto a point, if this happens frequently enough, your going to lose due to the incompetence of one team mate.
No, a multiplayer ONLY game will not be as fun, all the time, as a single player game will be. Because a singleplayer game is structured to give you the most fun, while a multiplayer game, like said previously, is random on the amount of fun. I can't tell you how many times I loved playing Team Fortress 2 and how many times I rage quited from a match due to incompetence of team.
The multiplayer gave me everything I wanted out of this game. It emphasizes teamwork and tactics; it actually takes some skill in order to be good at it. True "Battlefield" players (which can mostly be found on the PC) know this.
And what Yahtzee said about the multiplayer being endless repetition is simply not true in this case. The maps are huge, and the games can last for very long. No match is ever identical to another.
Like I said: I didn't care much for the campaign at all; it has none of the stuff that makes the multiplayer so amazing. I actually agree with most of the stuff Yahtzee says about it in this review. Thing is, the campaign is just one fraction of a per cent of all the enjoyment that you can get out of this game. And while I do think that EA and DICE made a mistake in hyping up the campaign so much, that doesn't take any enjoyment away from the multiplayer in any way at all.