Once again, the necessary disclaimer: Battlefield: Hardline isn't a fantastic game.
Our review is coming within 24 hours and it'll be clear that Visceral's fresh take on the long-running Battlefield franchise, while refreshing, has its fair share of flaws.
But what I don't quite get is the hypocrisy of the gaming community. I mean, I'm reading reviews that are pretty clear about their dissatisfaction with the campaign. Some of that dissatisfaction is indeed warranted, but I think a lot of it stems from the fact that this doesn't really feel like a standard Battlefield entry. Hell, it doesn't feel like a standard FPS. And that's where it's losing people, I think.
I've been saying the same thing for years: People can bitch and whine and moan about how the first-person shooter genre needs to innovate. We heard this same complaint throughout much of the previous generation, what with Call of Duty ruling the roost. But it seemed like whenever a FPS did try something new, it didn't fare as well with critics and gamers. And why? Because they like what they like. Change the formula too much, and it's no longer what they like; it's no longer a first-person shooter, really.
Now, the multiplayer in Hardline has plenty of freshness and feels like more of the quintessential "shooter" we're all used to, but the campaign offers a significant twist on the regular ol' shoot first-think never formula. Perhaps it's safe to say that FPS aficionados have no interest in high-speed chases, stealth, and arresting suspects without killing them. Okay, that's what I mean when I talk about hypocrisy; they say they want something different but in truth, they only respond to the familiar. It's the same story in most any consumer market, really.
But to see a game penalized for simply trying something new, for basically responding to the "legit" calls for innovation, seems like a massive double standard. Sure, there are problems. However, we can't even call such an attempt a positive thing…?
Related Game(s): Battlefield: Hardline