I have enjoyed playing the previous Battlefield games, but with the large scale operations, something just doesn't feel right. They should feel awesome, with so many players taking part, but instead I'm left wondering if my actions made any difference in the battle at all. If I killed a couple of players here and there, did it help capture an objective, or if we failed did I not do enough? If I am defending and lose an objective, was it my fault, or my teammates, or is there a balancing issue which means that objective always gets captured easily? If we successfully defend, did I help much or was it the guy in the tank doing all the work, or someone camping? The point being that I am never sure if I accomplish anything, and normally in PvP with small teams there's a strong sense of whether I did well, because it can be measured in kills and/or objectives captures. Does anyone else find the same thing with the Battlefield Operations?
The issue with most of the recent COD campaigns were that they were too short, because the developers were already moving towards multiplayer only. They were also limited in scope, with linear stories and limited collectibles. I still don't think the solution to the single player issues was to remove the mode completely.
I will always be swayed by a game with a decent length campaign, even if the multiplayer is still good (which is debatable in the case of COD's quickdraw gunplay, which has more to do with internet quality than skill).
It seems to be extremely easy to develop the regular multiplayer mode of the game when it has already been done in previous COD. I expect much of the code is retained, and it's just designing some new environments.
In this case, I won't be buying it, but I haven't bought a COD for years because of the campaigns becoming so short and multiplayer becoming boring. The lack of a campaign just makes my decision easier.
I really want a great football game for the Switch, but EA keep failing to deliver. Having read the IGN review too, it appears this doesn't play well. They complained that the goal keepers are terrible, and it's easy to score from long distance shots. I thought the Switch being successful would make EA try harder to produce better titles for it, but they just don't seem bothered.
They obviously missed the cheap boss, which for most players will make them give up after only a few hours. It was a 9 up to that point, but then became a 4. Broken and unplayable. Sega refuse to patch it, so we are stuck with a level that needs to be played for at least a few minutes, to get to a boss that gets in a cheap hit, you lose all your rings in the oil, then can't avoid a second hit. You get a few tries then you have to replay the entire 2 zones again.
I've never seen the rest of the game, or unlocked anything after this, so I'm left with a few levels to replay, which isn't a lot.
@lorddaggeroff: I like the grouping of all the indie games. There's the occasional gem, but far too much coverage of some obviously going to be average or worse titles.
Already got the Platinum and traded it in. Can't say I'm that bothered by whatever the secret is, as there was nothing to do after completing the game anyway, so unless it respawns every enemy so I could beat them again, or offers new game+, I'll pass.
I realised this game wasn't for me about half way through the video of the first level. It looks really boring. There's no way I'm watching 40 minutes of gameplay.
As for the score. They say it has a lack of content, yet they still give it a 9. So it's another game for switch which I will play for a few days (at most) before shelving forever. I'll save my cash instead.
Just starting out and getting used to the combat. I want to just slash away, but learning to dodge whenever the enemy attacks. It's taking a bit of getting used to because dodge requires using block and evade. Hopefully, the enemies will stay manageable on regular difficulty, but so far they've managed to kill me a few times.
@alexy9988: Those Switch titles aren't 10s. Bayonetta 2 is a 7 or 8 at best. I haven't touched it since I completed my first playthrough. Super Mario Odyssey is a 9, I struggled to get into it, but it was good when I did, but it just isn't that interesting in the long term. Zelda was another 9, with many of the new gameplay mechanics turning into annoyances after a while, some terrible control/camera issues, especially during boss battles, and the guardians' lasers are just annoying when trying to roam around and explore. But at least Zelda had a decent sized map and it was interesting to explore even after the end of the game.
swimbearuk's comments