It's been a little less than two weeks, and I'm already ready to say goodbye to this game. Getting the $20 at gamestop out of the $60 I paid for it might actually be better than having it sit in my home. Here's why.
I'm not a CoD fanboy either. Military sim and tactical shooting are totally my cup of tea. I've been waiting a long time for the "ultimate" milsim that this promised to be. But this game turned out to be so horribly last-gen that I don't know how I didn't realize it before I bought it.
I'm not going to rant about the AI, glitches, or other technical problems with the game, because no game is perfect. I'm just going to talk about the choices that Codemasters made to build a truly half-assed gaming experience and sucker people into buying it.
First off, the open world is a lie. Yes, there are 220km's of land for you to explore. But is there any point for you to explore them? Nope. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on the island for you to do besides the main missons. You can't run off and fight skirmishes with random enemies in a bigger war around you, because there is no war going on around you. On a given level, the island is devoid of all life outside your direct mission area. It's as if the US and China agreed never to deploy more than 40 troops in the theatre at any given time.
Level design also fails. The game is over in 11 short but time-consuming missions. Your engagements with the enemy are very small, and you never feel like you're making any kind of difference in the war. I guess this helps with the feeling of being a small part of a big war, but it makes for a boring and unsatisfying game, and by the end you feel like nothing really happened.However, there is NO excuse for the emptiness of the last level, when your commanders repeatedly tell you that the PLA is making their last stand, and to expect heavy fighting, but instead you find nothing but occasional enemy watchposts (with 2 guards each) and a naval base garrisoned by like 3 troops. Definition of anticlimactic.
Also, the game is a pitifully limited experience. There's lots of variety in weapon types and vehicles, but you don't get access to most of them. If you stick to your mission and don't friendly-fire your teammates to loot their weapons, the only guns you'll ever get are your standard assault rifles (which all handle the same, so don't expect variety there) and a couple of sniper rifles (again, they feel identical). Want the M249 SAW that's a staple of modern FPS? You have to kill your buddy and steal it from him, thus screwing yourself. Vehicles are the same. Lots of tanks, APCs, and helo's, but you never get to use em (at least, not in a context that benefits you). Again, you have to steal em from your allies to get em, which takes away from the feeling of being a real soldier and not a war criminal. It's as if Codemasters is taunting you by showing you all the cool stuff they could've given you but never do. Oh, and that cool little offroad buggy that you saw in the screenshots? It doesn't even show up in the game. Codemasters should be indicted for the amount of false advertising they did to dress this game up and sell it.
Seriously, this game feels like a mod of Ghost Recon ONE. Sure, it's open world, but it might as well not be, given how little there is to actually do. The only thing remotely next-gen about this game is the draw distance (not like there's anything to see). To be fair, the graphics are better than last-gen, but are crap compared to every other shooter this generation.
I thought this game was going to be phenomenal. And when I realized it wasn't, I tried really hard to like it anyway. But I can't help but feel cheated by the amount of unfulfilled promises that Codemasters made but didn't follow up on, and all the flashy stuff shown in the previews that aren't actually in the game. Mostly I'm pissed off at myself for paying $60 for it instead of waiting for Demon's Souls to restock.
I'm thinking hard about whether to trade it in and get what little money I can for it, or wait to see if the patches and DLC actually do anything, but Codemasters would have a lot of catching up to do to fix this fundamentally-flawed game.
Jeremy from Netto's Game Room reviews Escape from Ever After, a game that channels the charming spirit of the early Paper Mario games in this wonderful turn-based RPG.
Monster Train, Expeditions: A MudRunner Game, Middle-earth: Shadow of War, and Injustice 2 will leave Xbox Game Pass on February 28.
Mobile Suit Gundam Code Fairy, R-Type Final 3 Evolved, TMNT: Shredder’s Revenge, and Cris Tales exit PS Plus in March 2026.
I can't help but feel like this is of the console version. Because on PC I know there is a map editor where you can create your own missions. These missions can then be played online with other people or just by yourself. You can add in all the vehicles and decided what type of soldier the player gets to be(aka taking out what gun you get complaint). Alot of the complaints can be removed via the PC version.
As far as mission design and realism goes,go ahead and rip on them.
I whole heatidly agree about the console versions, its so poor in many ways it defies belife how a top developer could make something so shoddy.
Yet with decent marketing and ALOT of BS they have still managed to ship a load of copies.
Lame
I agree %100 with your rant. I too was excited by all the videos of "gameplay" with tanks and helicopters etc. I kept waiting for something exciting to happen or to be involved in said excitement only to be completely fvcking disappointed right up to the very end. After this pathetic display for a "current-gen" game I wouldn't give Codemasters one red cent. Hype and bullsh!t by the shovelful...open up gamers here it cums. "You want any of these cool vehicles? Look how cool they are, you know you want to play this game... well they sure as sh!t aren't in single player suckers! Thanks for buying our game cha-ching. Oh wait...here's a jeep for you to SLIDE around in." Sh!tty graphics, boring gameplay limp weapons. What was there 2 maybe 3 opportunities for artillery support? which I expected to knock my socks off given the videos I saw but no. It was a half assed squad game at best and that's being generous. War my ass. Right...I also had a more realistic "war" experience playing Ghost Recon many many years ago.
that was good...OPERATION FAILPOING, im just rolling my stomach off of laughing with this.
I think players' main issue with the game should be that it's nowhere near as good as it's competitor' 'Arma 2' or even Arma: Armed Assault, and yet, it's still going to be a more high profile title. And that Codemasters got away with releasing a sub-par military sim on consoles, only because there's nothing better. If you own a decent PC, the game is better, but still nowhere close to the standard of 'Arma 2'.
I bought it on the day of release for the Xbox 360.
Initially, I thought it was better than I'd hoped for, having worried that it would be too 'gamey' and that the visuals would be poor. Actually, the gameplay, AI, and graphics are all fine. The problem is the design. The campaign is a linear Ghost Recon affair, when it FEELS like it should be free-roaming island warfare on a massive scale. There's little to no variety in the mission objectives and you never get to try out the full arsenal of weapons or vehicles.
COOP is what makes the whole thing worthwhile, but I think it's a little lazy for developers to essentially rely on the FUN factor of playing with friends to make up for a distinct lack of FUN in their game. You never act like a real fireteam either. You're just 4 soliders all shooting and healing each other. You can't take tactically different roles in the missions unless you invent them yourselves. In other words, it's no more complex than Left 4 Dead.
Online shows promise as well, but I can't actually get into a game unless privately invited. And, on closer inspection, there's very little replayability in the MP once the few maps and scenarios reveal themselves to be quite empty and dull. It rarely all comes together into something exciting and strategic, and requires a lot of work to do so.
Battlefield offers far more in terms of MP (be it less realistic). And in Arma 2, the possiblities for taking part in a massive, island scale, conflict are almost limitless - all the hard work inn getting your team together and traversing the terrain almost always pays off. OFP:DR is a shallow experience in comparison. Limitations of the consoles aside, it's a dissappointment.
Sadly, I'm looking to trade this in pretty soon.