Battlefield Hardline: sure you're still shooting stuff, but it's quite the departure. How have you been finding the game so far?
Reviews have been decent, but drifting far closer to 'mediocre' than EA might have liked and most complaints seem to be that the game struggles when it doesn't take enough risks with the Battlefield template. You can understand the reluctance. Moving Battlefield from usual 'shoot people in the desert' fare probably felt like a big enough risk. Combining that with a complete rejig of how the game plays might have felt like a step too far for a studio having their first go at making a Battlefield game.
But it's got me thinking: if asked to choose between a reboot of the game's setting and a reboot of how the game itself played? I'd probably preferred that Visceral had chosen the gameplay route. But why not have both? There's a sense that Visceral may have been better going all in with this game. Rebooting the setting is a big enough risk: why not go the whole way?
What are your thoughts on the game so far?