All we should ask of our critics is that they be consistent.
That being said, I have to wonder: Why did I see very few complaints concerning the length of the cut-scenes in Battlefield: Hardline ? Some of them are pretty long and they're definitely frequent.
The reason I ask is because The Order: 1886 got ceaseless flak for this very reason. Some idiots issued that "watching more than playing" ridiculousness, which always gets my goat. I'm just wondering where they all are for the latest Battlefield . I've played both and I'm willing to bet that there are more non-interactive sequences in Hardline than there are in The Order: 1886 . I'm not sure any one sequence in Visceral's game is longer than one of the longest segments in Ready at Dawn's game, but they're certainly comparable.
And yeah, The Order looked better and featured acting that was just as good, if not better. So, what's the deal? Where are all the mocking morons now? Is it because there was just more dialogue in one, and people simply need to be titillated every five seconds or they start to feel bored? Maybe that's it. Or maybe it's just because The Order was too linear…oh, wait, pretty sure Hardline was pretty damn linear, too.
I'd just love an explanation for this obvious double standard. But I imagine I won't get one.