Check put my new blog post: http://www.ign.com/blogs/razorterminator/2012/01/09/casual-games-and-the-diminishing-hardcore-game-market/

What happened to the days when a video game was a challenge and you could be proud of beating one? And no, you don't have to even have to go back to the 80's to find "hardcore" games. I can recall plenty of fun and challenging games on the SNES and Nintendo 64 could offer, ones that needn't be filled with tips and bread-crumb trails to guide the player to it's conclusion; games like Banjo Kazooie (I think I spelled that right) and Golden Eye: 007 come to mind. Ahh the days of split-screen deathmatchs on 007 seem to be branded in my memory, let's reflect for a moment shall we?

/endreflection

Now that we have the days of old out of the way I can continue the conversation on why i believe the hardcore game market is diminishing and why we'll soon be filled with a world full of birds that are angry and games that rarely need the gamer to think at all.

I fully understand that the casual games market exists for those who rather not play Halo for four hours, however I do not understand as to why once hardcore developers have succumb to the seduction imposed by casual game sales. One part of me says that the best business move would be to change with the changing market. Then I ask myself, "are there really so few 'hardcore' games out there anymore?" I point to two well-known culprits to plead my case, Fable 2 and the ever-present Call of Duty series.

I would first like to start off by saying I LOVED Fable 1 and that I was eagerly anticipating the forthcoming release of Fable 2. Initially after playing the game I would say I loved it, but after reflecting on my experience I couldn't put into words how much I hated it. It sucked the challenge out of Fable by simplifying the combat and controls; on top of that they even included a bread-crumb trail to guide me to my destination. This not only made me feel utterly incompetent, but insulted me as a long time gamer. Does Lionhead really believe gamers have become so mentally numb and lazy that we could not deal with at least a slight learning curve or challenging puzzle with no assists?

Next I bring into the spotlight, Call of Duty. It's a game series known and loved/hated 'round the world, both for it's fast paced arcadey combat and accessibility. Call of Duty originated as a game hardcore gamers could really sink there teeth into and develop play styles and strategies to best their online advessaries. Somewhere along the line however, namely Call of Duty 4, the series went in a new and unexpected direction. It added in experience points to add an addiction level (what I believe is mainly the route to it's success has been), it introduced fast-paced combat, and above all it was/is extremely accessible to newcomers.

Give the controller to your six year old nephew and I guarantee he could score at least a few kills which in turn makes him enjoy the game. This accessibility, which is allowed by things such as large hit boxes and high aim-assists, makes games a tremendous success it would seem; not only that, but it makes them casual. There is little to no learning curve in Call of Duty, and if it weren't for the dangling carrot of XP/achievement I highly doubt any longtime gamers would waste there time.

Due to the success of games where accessibility and an easy difficulty are corner-stones, we now live in a world where even our favorite "hardcore" franchises are becoming molded by the increase in the casual games market. For an example you can look no further than Halo: Reach which also added in a credit aka XP system, thankfully Halo: Reach is still a game that can offer significant challenge online. I'm just not sure how long our favorite franchises will still be our favorite franchises, and not some after-effect of the booming casual games market.

Thanks for reading!

So, I've had the chance to play a large amount of Battlefield 3's multiplayer component on Xbox 360 and all I can say is WOW. The game encourages teamwork, oozes realism unlike any other popular online shooter, and has a sense of immersion few can contend with. However IGN awarded the game a score of a 9, which in no way is a bad one, I just question there logic.

The review felt as if they judged the game largely based off of the single-player component which IGN is fully aware is basically a "bonus"; IGN even made a video showing how DICE/EA shipped the single-player portion on the second disc, signifying the single-player as being a secondary component to the actual focus of the game which is obviously the multiplayer.

Personally I think the game deserves a 9.5 since Modern Warfare 2 garnered a score of 9.5 from IGN even though the single-player was lackluster in most respects and it weighed in at about five hours long. It got a score of 9.5, I presume, because IGN knows that the multiplayer is the core of any CoD game.

I'm not a "hater" of the Call of Duty series, since I've bought every one up to Black Ops, however with recent gameplay videos of Modern Warfare 3 it just looks like too much of the same. My interest in the series has been waning for some years now, but a new feature or mode eventually perked my interest enough for me to purchase the game; such as Black Op's Wager game modes.

I just felt like getting my two cents in on what I believe was a pretty unfair/contradictory review from IGN, if you agree or don't sound off in the comments section. Or if you don't feel like commenting I'll see you on the Battlefield!

My personal wishlist includes:

Prone (included)

Bigger maps than the Bad Company series

More custimization for the weapons

Custom emblems for your vehicle

Bigger squads

More diverse looking character models in multiplayer

New game mode

If you have suggestions of your own sound off inthe comments.

Here is the brand new gameplay footage for Battlefield 3, watch as you can go PRONE! Yes the game really does look this good.

Hopefully DICE will reveal an alternative way of getting into the Battlefield 3 beta because I just checked out some pictures of it and I must play it, EARLY. I opted out of playing MoH because of its sheer crapiness as most others did and unless DICE plans on having three beta testers they better open an alternative way of getting in the beta.