BF Hardline playthrough review.... :\

[mizzou]

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/11...attlefield-hardlines-tough-choices?watch=true

...this media man.... I get it, you don't like the idea of capping the shit out of innocent "thugs", so you feel less guilt when you handcuff people and do the realistic thing.

I like how when we play GTA series, it's completely and utterly insane to think that when we gleefully murder innocent people, first responders, and anything else that moves, we should feel zero guilt. If anything, there were people upset over police being "too" effective...I only remember some people feeling hesitant in reviews when you do the torture scene, but even then it was mildly hesitant. "Oohhh its so artistic how we get to explore the insane mindset of Trevor and travel every insane nuance of his murderous mind....blahblahblah"


So now we have a game where you play as the cop, and now you feel guilt tripped when you want to gleefully shoot everything that moves? Don't "Glorify Police Brutality"????

Don't feel guilty! Have a blast, do what you know is wrong, it's a freaking video game. Cap the shit out of people if you want. Don't use lethal force at all if you want, do whatever you want, it's a GAME....he act's like he's playing as a naive Nazi soldier and has to tread lightly in how he performs or is seen to perform.

Is that what we've done now....cops are Nazi soldiers or Vietnam baby-killers? Can't even fathom to roleplay anymore without being extra-super-duper careful about how you are perceived?

ANyway, I am obviously being a bit over-dramatic, I think this game looks promising and maybe BF's first decent foray into a single player campaign. The setting looks excellent for a different perspective on 32-64player servers.

I applaud the game-makers for providing a feasible option of how to proceed with a level vs. just spray & pray of the mideast theatre. It makes sense and it seems to have tactical benefits, I hope the remainder of the game adds other important details.

What I hope this ISN"T however, is just a slick superficial detail added on top to make sure it can pass ESRB ratings.

 

[Tim]

Link the article in as many places as you can while complaining about it. That'll teach him...

 

[mizzou]

Link the article in as many places as you can while complaining about it. That'll teach him...

It's a fine preview, I'm just perplexed at the psychology of the whole thing. We battle this "gamers guilt" every so often, and it usually takes a game like Postal or something to put stuff back into perspective that this is all fantasy and really doesn't have any repercussions in the world (at least more so then any other artistic medium).

 

[Blanky]

I'm actually--and I have never said this about a game--damn near morally opposed to this game. The militarization of police in America has personally bothered me, and having a Battlefield game that glorifies this militarization is abhorrent to me. The timing on this game could hardly be worse, in fact.

It's good to see that the single player campaign isn't just a six hour screw-everyone's-constitutional-rights spree; sounds like maybe it's a bit more evolved than that.

And I say this as a person who loved GTA V. I feel no guilt over killing many, many virtual people, but I have no interest in playing a cop thug. I see enough of them on youtube.

 

[JumBie]

Aside from what was written and being discussed there I feel the need to chime in on this game. Having played the BETA, I know it was not anything close to a final build, but I found this game to be absolutely terrible. In all honesty the battlefield series has been on a steady decline and I only hope that Bad Company 3 can revive it, thats hoping it ever comes out.

 

[Rinaun]

Aside from what was written and being discussed there I feel the need to chime in on this game. Having played the BETA, I know it was not anything close to a final build, but I found this game to be absolutely terrible. In all honesty the battlefield series has been on a steady decline and I only hope that Bad Company 3 can revive it, thats hoping it ever comes out.

I'd agree on everything said except BC3. I don't think BC3 could save the PC-side of the franchise. They need to come out with 1942 version 2 or 2143, plus tone down the amount of rock-paper-scissor weaponry they put in the game. In 1942, you could blow tanks up with grenades (granted they weren't as effective). In 1942, you didn't have people constantly reviving eachother and stacking with clannies, etc. Battles felt slower and more realistic in both games than "let me dive out from behind this uboat and sprint the beach ahh 3 shotted" feel that battlefield evolved from starting in BF2.

I'd almost say that dice needs to go replay 1942 and remember why battlefield became popular. Some point between 1942 and 2142 they screwed the math up, and the game sped up/became console-ized.


Source: someone who has tested BF games at EA, and has played every Battlefield on PC since first-year 1942.

 

[slightlyhuman]

I'd agree on everything said except BC3. I don't think BC3 could save the PC-side of the franchise. They need to come out with 1942 version 2 or 2143, plus tone down the amount of rock-paper-scissor weaponry they put in the game. In 1942, you could blow tanks up with grenades (granted they weren't as effective). In 1942, you didn't have people constantly reviving eachother and stacking with clannies, etc. Battles felt slower and more realistic in both games than "let me dive out from behind this uboat and sprint the beach ahh 3 shotted" feel that battlefield evolved from starting in BF2.

I'd almost say that dice needs to go replay 1942 and remember why battlefield became popular. Some point between 1942 and 2142 they screwed the math up, and the game sped up/became console-ized.

yes, i want that feel of bf1942 if i fuck up in the enemies base on el alamien i've got a long drive back..

 

[JumBie]

I'd agree on everything said except BC3. I don't think BC3 could save the PC-side of the franchise. They need to come out with 1942 version 2 or 2143, plus tone down the amount of rock-paper-scissor weaponry they put in the game. In 1942, you could blow tanks up with grenades (granted they weren't as effective). In 1942, you didn't have people constantly reviving eachother and stacking with clannies, etc. Battles felt slower and more realistic in both games than "let me dive out from behind this uboat and sprint the beach ahh 3 shotted" feel that battlefield evolved from starting in BF2.

I'd almost say that dice needs to go replay 1942 and remember why battlefield became popular. Some point between 1942 and 2142 they screwed the math up, and the game sped up/became console-ized.


Source: someone who has tested BF games at EA, and has played every Battlefield on PC since first-year 1942.

I'll be honest the way I felt when I played those epic online battles in 1942 nothing compares to it. I gotta say though, that game Heroes & Generals on steam kind of brought back that feeling.

 

[Mike4]

I'll be honest the way I felt when I played those epic online battles in 1942 nothing compares to it. I gotta say though, that game Heroes & Generals on steam kind of brought back that feeling.

Have you ever played Red Orchestra?

 

[futurefields]

bring on the controversy i love it

day one purchase for me, hopefully it works better than Advanced Warfare

 

[JumBie]

Have you ever played Red Orchestra?

Yes, I played Red Orchestra 2. Problem is, I last about 10 seconds every round. I get sniped by someone that I probably won't ever see before he sees me. Made the game less fun to be honest.

 

[Rinaun]

I'll be honest the way I felt when I played those epic online battles in 1942 nothing compares to it. I gotta say though, that game Heroes & Generals on steam kind of brought back that feeling.

Have you ever played Red Orchestra?

The funny part is I was going to mention both RO and H&G, but didn't want people arguing on how those two games from an overall perspective aren't the same as the BF series. Both games mentioned took key features from 1942/BF series, and well.....no game really brings the pure experience of 1942 in next-gen graphics. The last GOOD WW2 shooter would be COD2 or that COD :ww2 mod, but I wouldn't even call the mod good (COD2 was good in its own respects/ways). I'd love to see 1943 published on PC, but they bailed on it years ago during the 360 era and made it a console-only DLC title.

I think ATM EA is 100% run by what their stockholders want, and right now there is a huge stigma of "rehashing titles" associated with EA. I think they need to realize that you can tastefully revisit franchises (1942 to 1943) while avoiding the "forcing a game down the consumers' throat" feel that they've been noted for in the past. A great example is how EA sells Battlefield Premium, when if they just went back to the DLC-format of BF2 NOBODY would complain. Premium itself just sounds so money-grab in my personal opinion, as in bundling/selling stuff before we even get to see what we get as a result.

Also, using franchises like Battlefield to prop a game up like Hardline is silly. Hardline would have been fine marketing-wise without the battlefield franchise tacked on. I'd wager it would have done better due to the lack of criticism comparing it to its' predecessors.

 

[mizzou]

I'm actually--and I have never said this about a game--damn near morally opposed to this game. The militarization of police in America has personally bothered me, and having a Battlefield game that glorifies this militarization is abhorrent to me. The timing on this game could hardly be worse, in fact.

It's good to see that the single player campaign isn't just a six hour screw-everyone's-constitutional-rights spree; sounds like maybe it's a bit more evolved than that.

And I say this as a person who loved GTA V. I feel no guilt over killing many, many virtual people, but I have no interest in playing a cop thug. I see enough of them on youtube.

I won't go back and forth, but could you expand on your thinking here for me to help me understand your opinion better?

I have a hard time understanding that...when people say "I'm opposed to the militarization of police", what that means. What are you most opposed to? The use of helicopters, ballistic vest carriers, semi-automatic firearms, flashlights, cars, batons, pepper spray, TASER. Granted, I'm sure the game will over-play the use of bullet-resistant vehicles, helicopters, etc., and will "Hollywood" the conflict between bad guys and *ahem* GOOD guys.

So I'm assuming you are also aware of those detective games where you literally trample all over peoples rights (But do so in a less hollywood style a'la L.A. Noire). If you think about it, there is probably just as much rights violations going on in those games as well. Did you boycott that game also? Or are you mainly upset over the characterized image of modern police displaying force?

How could a hollywood stylized version of cops vs. robbers be acceptable for you, where you wouldn't feel guilty shooting the robber?

You are completely 100% right because liking or not liking something is purely opinion and there is no way you can be wrong on that. I do wonder though, if you feel at all hypocritical for feeling guilt when playing as law enforcement vs. feeling no guilt when playing as a criminal.

 

[sweenish]

I do wonder though, if you feel at all hypocritical for feeling guilt when playing as law enforcement vs. feeling no guilt when playing as a criminal.

This has me wondering as well. In my head, that seems hypocritical.

Spoiler tagged some rambling, I like it better when spoilers are collapsed.

Spoiler

I am also against the ridiculous militarization of our police. What's sad is that we've gone from one extreme to the other. It used to be that our police forces were under-armed to take on the more extreme criminals, which put them at a far greater risk than they should have been reasonably expected to take.

Now, we're on the other side where they literally have tanks. They also lack any kind of proper training with their new toys. Just look at Ferguson and how many photos there are of police aiming their assault rifles at protesting civilians that are not armed with knives or guns. An officer of soldier is never to raise their weapon unless they intend to fire (because they feel like their life or the lives of others are in danger). There is no way that officers rounding a street corner should have their weapons raised unless they were in pursuit of an actual, armed suspect.

But, looping back to the point, this is still a video game.

How is it okay in one's mind to play as a criminal, kill (and in the case GTA V, torture) civilians and generally wreak havoc, but at the same time not do those things to criminals playing as a police officer?

Which leads to my next question: What's your take on playing as a soldier, wantonly killing anything that moves? The fact that the games we play conveniently remove all civilians shouldn't take away from the fact that what you are doing as a soldier is simply not correct behavior.

Also, have you played Spec Ops: The Line?

 

[JumBie]

This has me wondering as well. In my head, that seems hypocritical.

Spoiler tagged some rambling, I like it better when spoilers are collapsed.

Spoiler

I am also against the ridiculous militarization of our police. What's sad is that we've gone from one extreme to the other. It used to be that our police forces were under-armed to take on the more extreme criminals, which put them at a far greater risk than they should have been reasonably expected to take.

Now, we're on the other side where they literally have tanks. They also lack any kind of proper training with their new toys. Just look at Ferguson and how many photos there are of police aiming their assault rifles at protesting civilians that are not armed with knives or guns. An officer of soldier is never to raise their weapon unless they intend to fire (because they feel like their life or the lives of others are in danger). There is no way that officers rounding a street corner should have their weapons raised unless they were in pursuit of an actual, armed suspect.

But, looping back to the point, this is still a video game.

How is it okay in one's mind to play as a criminal, kill (and in the case GTA V, torture) civilians and generally wreak havoc, but at the same time not do those things to criminals playing as a police officer?

Which leads to my next question: What's your take on playing as a soldier, wantonly killing anything that moves? The fact that the games we play conveniently remove all civilians shouldn't take away from the fact that what you are doing as a soldier is simply not correct behavior.

Also, have you played Spec Ops: The Line?

So off topic, but my personal opinion is that being a cop should be like getting any major degree. 4 years undergrad minimum at university and then police school after that. Think of how things would change if our cops were educated.

 

[flopper]

I'd agree on everything said except BC3. I don't think BC3 could save the PC-side of the franchise. They need to come out with 1942 version 2 or 2143, plus tone down the amount of rock-paper-scissor weaponry they put in the game. In 1942, you could blow tanks up with grenades (granted they weren't as effective). In 1942, you didn't have people constantly reviving eachother and stacking with clannies, etc. Battles felt slower and more realistic in both games than "let me dive out from behind this uboat and sprint the beach ahh 3 shotted" feel that battlefield evolved from starting in BF2.

I'd almost say that dice needs to go replay 1942 and remember why battlefield became popular. Some point between 1942 and 2142 they screwed the math up, and the game sped up/became console-ized.


Source: someone who has tested BF games at EA, and has played every Battlefield on PC since first-year 1942.

dice are done.
they crapshot their own game series.
cant even get Mantle to work and they were a developer of it.

cant stand dice crap anymore they blew it the last 3 games and nothing in the battlefield series will ever feel like BF1942 or the BF2 experience ever again they dice are done.

 

[moonbogg]

How can someone be offended by a game? What happened? If EA made a game about kidnapping and eating babies, I would not be offended. Its a game.

 

[artemicion]

It all depends on context. GTA isn't offensive to most people because it's easily recognizable as a game that's not supposed to be taken seriously. If someone made a serious game about massacring innocents, it'd be a pretty f-d up game. The person who makes it would be viewed as psycho, the people who play it would be viewed as psycho.

I think some people were worried that Hardline would be a serious game about cops massacring criminals, which would be a pretty f-ed up game. Plus, realistically, military shooter doesn't really fit the mold of an average cop's day to day routine. Military style combat isn't a part of most cops' jobs. So the premise sounds pretty retarded to begin with and there's some fear that trying to shoehorn a cop story into a military shooter game wouldn't work. I have no idea how it worked out in the end, but those were people's concerns.

Edit: if you remember, the same thing happened when Rockstar announced "Bully." People assumed that Rockstar was making a GTA clone that took place in a school setting, which honestly would be a pretty f-ed up game. Turns out they made something different so no controversy there.

 

[futurefields]

people like to whine and complain and tell other people they are doing stuff wrong, living their life wrong, interested in the wrong things etc etc etc etc etc

it's called human nature it's never gonna go away learn to laugh at it and do what u want cuz when u die that's it - your dead and all you did was live a life you hated to please some other people