Game review

In this blog post i will be reviewing 2 games, going into depth about the pros and cons of them and giving my own opinions. The first game today i shall be reviewing is call of duty: world war 2. For those unfamiliar with what this is, call of duty is a first person shooter developed by sledgehammer games. It is an action game with both single-player and multi-player experiences as well as being the fourteenth installment to the call of duty franchise.

Firstly, Sledgehammer games have done what i believe to be the best thing which is listen more to what the community are saying then whatever will get them a bigger paycheck. This is evident of the way they are handling their micro transactions as well as they supply drop system. In previous call of duty's players have had the option to buy supply drops in which they can get gear and weapon variants. This has been highly controversial within the community as many have argued that some variants have the possibility to change the game and all you'd need to do is pay extra for for a chance do do so which people would say is ruining the multiplayer experience. Instead of getting rid of them their solution was to make supply drops cosmetic only, therefore purchasing them gives you no advantage within the game. Whilst weapon variants are still included the only thing they do is provide a small piece more of experience points to players. In addition to this they have also listened by adding the fan favorite game mode of prop hunt to the game showing this time they are valuing the community's feedback even more.

In addition to this the game developers have been known to update the games frequently. While some may consider it to be a tedious burden as they have to wait for the game to update it is all done to make the game better. The developers have been quick this year to notice bugs and glitches to patch them. Furthermore they're also listening to feedback about weapon balance with them resulting in weakening or strengthen specific weapons to balance the game. Moreover they have done well to bring in seasonal events to strengthen their community with the promise of new in game content to intrigue newcomers of the series and keep older players along with them.

However, one thing noticed when playing the multiplayer is how boring it can get quickly. This is due to the lack of maps within the game as there are only 12 with 3 being specific to one game mode. In addition to this fans are not happy with the fact in order to get new maps you'll have to pay extra fro them. The same is also the case for the Nazi zombie game mode which only contains 1 map playable for free.

As well as this the single-player campaign has many split between down the line. whilst many are speaking of how it is the best compared to those of more recent years. Despite this though many have criticized it for how it is a very predictable story as well as being too short of a campaign story. Another thing it has received back lash over is the lack of diversity and how for the most part just dhows you the story of one american infantry soldier.

However the life expediencies for call of duty is very poor which is down to the basis of the release of call of duty games where 3 different companies take there turn to annually release a game. Because of this the games tend to last about a year because by the release of the newest one they are forgotten. I personally quarrel with this business strategy because it maximizes profit and taking less into account for the player community.

Overall i have found this game to be quite good. This is mainly down to the developers doing the best thing possible of listening to what the fans of the series have to say and valuing the community's feedback. However though whilst i like the game i worry for the future of it as adding a silly game mode like prop hunt in can lead to controversy as this game is based on a real war filled with horrific events and for me its the case of whether or not will they go over the line and do something stupid and deeply regret it because this was a real war where millions perished fighting for it.

The other video game i will be reviewing is 'Battlefield 1'. I chose this because it is a first person shooter based in a historical time period. The difference is battlefield is a fps based on the first world war. It is the fifteenth installment in the franchise which was developed by Electronic Arts.

Firstly i would like to talk about the single player campaign in battlefield. I personally believe it is far superior to the call of duty campaign. The biggest criticism i have for it is that it is too short and is about 6 hours long. Despite this battlefields campaign can be described as short yet sweet. This is because the campaign all focus on something different giving you six different playable experiences. This shows its superiority because of how diverse it is showing all aspects and stories of the war ranging from oil wars in Turkey to the skies of London. Also to top it off it is further enriched with spectacular cinematics to further the amazing experience.

Whilst Call of Duty introduced different classes for players it has always been signature within the franchise and continued to use them within battlefield 1. In addition to this they also introduced players to different game modes. The first of which is 'Operations' which is an all out war game mode where a defending team will have to fend off attackers within a certain time period with a finite amount of re spawns available. If the defending team fail they are pushed back to another sector of the map meaning by the end the attackers control the whole map. Another base game mode which came out is war pigeons which is similar to capture the flag where the objective is to capture pigeons and release them to signal artillery.

The lifespan for battlefield is far bigger than that of call of duty especially this one. This is because the development is different as only DICE develops the games therefore on average it takes longer to create them. In addition to this the game has had frequent updates sent out since its release with them being enough to satisfy consumers yet at the same time not enough to put them off over the size of them. Another way the game has been trying to expand its lifespan is by its own DLC. As of yet two map packs have been released with a third announced for early 2018. This is to stretch it out to late 2018 where it has been rumored for another installment to the franchise.

Overall Call of duty WII is a step in the right direction considering the previous installment but overall is just mediocre. That is why i believe Battlefield 1 to be the better out of the two as it shows a better perspective of war and really engages with its audience by telling a gripping story throughout the campaign as well as the multiplayer.