Bethesda: Save the Single Player games

Never fear! Bethesda is here to help! HA! Thanks Bethesda... for the laugh...

What do I think? Well, that was Bethetic.

 

Shallow advertising nonsense.

What else is there to say?

 

What ever you do don't give Bethesda money, if you do then we will have to deal with it pan handling on the corner for months until someone else makes that mistake. Also don't make eye contact, otherwise you will have to suffer its conspiracy theories.

 

That was a really weird ad for Bethesda games and I am uncomfortable.

But hey, at least they can stand behind their word on offering singleplayer experiences and that's true, disregarding ESO, however even if that is true I feel like this is a way for them to divert attention elsewhere. It's just such a weird kind of ad. Save singleplayer gamers? That's weird. So it makes me think Bethesda is up to something. Could it be that they want to divert attention away from their microtransactions now with the whole Destiny 2 and Battlefront 2 debacles?

 

Yes, also remove Doom. Dishonored 2.

This is kind of a bizarre statement all round as none of the games did poorly.

Bethesda has it right--as bad as I found Fallout 4, they did save single player gaming this year.

 

Then you are looking in the wrong places.

There are singleplayer games coming out by the truckload, you just have to know where to look.

 

One must be really desperate if he needs to be saved by Bethesda's games, and I'm not sure how they saved SP gaming by releasing remakes and/or sequels of old IPs.

 

I'm confused why reviving excellent game franchises is a bad thing.

 

I know multiplayer ruined Star Wars, tanking Anthem and Battlefront.

I know it ruined Deus Ex.

It trashed Unity as well.

Plus Halo.

That's not a small number of awesome games.

 

Missed my point entirely.

I wasn't suggesting multiplayer isn't ruining famous franchises.

I was suggesting that a truckload of single-player games did come out this year and the year before, and the year before, so to say one single company saved single-player gaming is ridiculous.

 

Hasn't that already revealed by the "Creation Club"?

Why would it be a good thing for the SP people who've already had enough of those?

 

>The Elder Scrolls Online

Yeah, thanks for your token, micro transaction filled mediocre WoW ripoff! What could we do without you! More seriously, it is true that as it goes they're pretty good, but it's almost shittier than those bad publishers to try and profit from their reputation. You don't deserve a badge for doing what you should, and they aren't really even doing that most of the time.

Star Wars has had multiplayer for a long, long time, as soon as multiplayer tech became a thing. We don't know diddly dick about Anthem. And Halo? Multiplayer is the thing that made it become what it was, and not just a pretty cute FPS to be forgotten in less than a year after release, as its multiplayer and later co-op would shape the genre of FPS and console games overall in a way unforeseen, that becoming its legacy. If you mean the later games, Halo 5's strongest is its multiplayer so I don't know what are you on about.

You know what, or should we say, WHO ruined all those "awesome" games? Their publishers, developers, a mix of both and then, the general audience, which would create market testing to inform the former's actions. It's admittedly pretty cute to honestly believe that single player games are a rarity even in the AAA or even "AA" scene, and that all the issues with some projects can be blamed on a single playable aspect.

 

I'm talking about the Star Wars game EA cancelled which was also codenamed Anthem, not the other sci-fi game Anthem. They cancelled the single player Star Wars game because it wasn't multiplayer focused.

I shit you not, they ruined Visceral games for it.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/10...led-because-it-was-single-player-says-ea-exec

Btw, Dead Space was also ruined as a franchise by Multiplayer.

 

Not really, constrictive deadlines, streamlining, overly big focus in action without taking better lessons from its predecessor, underhwelming story and ending, and overall dead end of the shift in interests of the franchise did. If anything, the integration of co-op and the integration of it in single player was one of its saving graces.

 

There's a lot of blame to go around but the entire development was based around the usual suspects of microtransactions and co-op that informed the creation of a big action based shoot-em up that could not be more dissonant with the series style. Given it's a game about isolation and horror, adding a fellow dude is innately antithetical to what the games are about.

But YMMV.

 

Because it could go horribly horribly wrong Ala fallout 3/4 or wolfenstien 2. No one wants a good series to be tarnished or tainted. Then again we can always ignore the new entries and that's absolute worst case scenario so nevermind fuck it go for it. Altho it'd be nice to see a new series for once.

 

Well we keep running into the fact Fallout 3 is one of my all time favorite games. Also, what's your problem with Wolfenstein: The New Order?

Everyone loves that game.