Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway Review

Middle of the road.

Version tested: Xbox 360

Brothers In Arms' first appearance in early 2005 was a shot in the arm for the battle-weary World War II genre. By putting a first-person spin on Full Spectrum Warrior's excellent 'cover and suppress' gameplay, it helped steer the genre in a more intelligent, strategic direction. Within each level were, essentially, a bunch of set-piece puzzles to solve: you'd face clusters of entrenched enemies and have to try and suss out ways in which to pick them off through cunning squad placement, and a mixture of suppression and flanking tactics. Running headlong towards the enemy was a one-way ticket to death.

This strategy-lite was hugely satisfying, but, by necessity, slowed the pace down to a crawl compared to the more cinematically-minded and gung-ho shooters. This amped up the tension, and made the action feel more like a gritty war of attrition than one man's Rambo charge down a corridor. Dialling down of the run-and-gun aspect meant there was generally a better sense of squad unity, and Gearbox took full advantage by zoning in on the trials that individual characters faced, as well as a greater emphasis on authentically recreating the real-life settings.

It wasn't for everyone, evidently, and was a little repetitive over the whole campaign - even more so if you happened to play the quick-fire sequel, Earned In Blood, which came out just seven months later. That we've had to wait almost three years for the third in the series is definitely a Good Thing in our book. Putting the franchise out to pasture for a while (by accident or design - you choose) has, in theory, given Gearbox ample time in which to reinvigorate the brand and build on the many good ideas, while giving fans a chance to recharge their enthusiasm for another merry round of Axis slaughter.

'Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway' Screenshot 1

This had been a poorly planned stag party, especially considering their choice of attire and warzone.

On paper, you can't argue with all the new features. The 'Big Thing' for Hell's Highway is without doubt destructible cover. It's not simply about suppressing the enemy anymore, it's about identifying weaknesses in their cover points and taking maximum advantage. If your enemy is behind a metal barricade, tough luck, but if they're stupid enough to think that a rickety wooden fence or a pile of sandbags are going to provide adequate cover, tell the men with bazookas to rain death down upon it and see just how long it lasts.

With this extra layer of strategy built in to the game, it's no longer a case of getting your squad to suppress while you merrily outflank them. It's evident right from the word go that Gearbox has expanded the battlefields sufficiently that you're almost always outnumbered. While you might have two or three squadrons of men to position around the environment, the chances are you'll be facing maybe five or six pockets of enemies. You really have to consider your priorities a lot more. Generally, you might figure out the weak links first, destroy their cover, pick off the stragglers, and then when the odds have been evened out, suppress the enemies which give you, Sgt. Matt Baker, the chance to slip in down the flanks and pick enemies off when you've got an appropriate angle.

'Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway' Screenshot 2

Once you've tenderly cupped a squadmate's bazooka, there's no turning back.

Initially, at least, directing the battlefield via the joypad feels a little counterintuitive with the default control mapping. Little things trip you up, like the way that aiming down your sights is mapped to a click on the right stick, rather than on the left trigger like you expect. But with a little persistence, it's easy to see why Gearbox chose to do so, with the emphasis on making the squad management system as easy as possible. If it really bothers you, however, there are a further four control mappings available - one of which (amusingly called Tour of Duty) allows you to use the left trigger/L2 to use the line-of-sight/zoom function. In common with Ubi-published military titles like Rainbow Six and GRAW, issuing squad commands is simple and intuitive. You hold down the left trigger to bring up a circular indicator and guide it with the left stick over the enemy to issue an attack order, or to a cover point to get them to move. Actions are frequently context-sensitive, so if it's possible for your squad to lob a grenade, the icon will change on the fly to reflect that. Likewise, if you have a bazooka squad and can feasibly destroy their cover, you'll see immediately if it's possible. Issuing the order is as simple as letting go of the left trigger.

If, however, you want to cancel the order, pressing the right trigger gets rid of the order reticule entirely. It takes a bit of getting used to, and you'll frequently issue orders in error (usually by ham-fistedly hitting the left trigger and sending your men blindly off into a hail of hot lead), but once you re-wire your gaming habits, it's a decent system which works well on the pad. With further options to switch between squad types (such as assault and bazooka teams), and an option for one or all of your teams to fall-in behind you, it's flexible without ever feeling overly convoluted.

At its core, the gameplay remains largely unaltered. It's still very much a case of training suppression fire in the right places, and keeping a close eye on the pie-chart indicators that appear above the heads of each group of enemy. The more red that appears in the pie-chart, the less suppressed they are, and hence the more dangerous they become. If the circle is entirely blue, however, it's possible to run towards them in almost complete safety.

Unlike previous Brothers In Arms titles, your health is no longer something to explicitly worry about, with no health bar or meter to fret over. Instead, the game effectively assumes that getting shot is a Very Bad Thing, and bases your 'health' on the amount of time you spend exposed in a dangerous position. Stay exposed for too long, and the screen will go increasingly blood red until, kerpow, your enemy finally gets a bead on you and you hit the deck. Ducking back into cover returns the colour balance back to normal, so you have an instant, reliable indicator as to when it's safe to poke your head above cover and start firing back in earnest.

This cat-and-mouse game of cover and retreat, while a little on the forgiving side and completely unrealistic, definitely works on a pure gameplay level. You can predictably and reliably know that as long as the screen isn't too red, you're okay. It not only informs you of when you're capable of returning fire, but roughly for how long, and aids those perilous sprints between cover points. In a very obvious nod to Gears of War, you can run by holding down A (or X on PS3), but you can't fire. Fortunately, it's a damned sight easier to 'steer' your man while doing so than it was in Epic's game, which is a relief. In terms of how you use the cover points, simply pressing LB/L1 makes Baker sidle snugly up to any cover point, and peeking out from behind it is as simple as moving the left stick in the appropriate direction.

After a few missions, the game's invisible tutorial schools you seamlessly in all aspects of the game, and you cannot argue with the solid fundamentals. Everything which made the original compelling returns in a bigger, better, more technically accomplished fashion, and the battlefields offer a more expansive challenge on the whole. But does it go far enough?

In a word, no. The game's biggest problem is a crushing lack of variety. Set over ten chapters, by the time you're four or five in, the sense of grinding repetition has settled. With the enemy permanently set up in predictable formation, it really does become a case of picking off the cannon fodder, blasting through weak defenses, flanking and repeating until bored. Admittedly, some of the later chapters amp up the number of enemies you face at once, but the formula remains stubbornly repetitive. Why didn't Gearbox experiment with enemy behaviour, and get them to try and outflank you, or put you in situations where enemies are coming at you from unpredictable directions? Constantly facing enemies that only appear in front of you just feels incredibly old for a game which prides itself on strategy and authenticity.

'Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway' Screenshot 3

Sending an assault team to scrump apples is a valuable use of army resources.

But Hell's Highway's problems aren't strictly about boredom through incessant repetition; it's the general ease with which you can breeze through levels almost by yourself, even on the so-called Veteran level. Thanks to the deadly accuracy of the iron sights aiming system, you can pick off most enemies yourself from an almost impossible range with a basic rifle, which is ludicrous. Meanwhile, you could have three squadrons of four training their fire on a specific area and they'd struggle to pick off a single enemy if you left them firing for a week. It's all very well giving you control of a squad, but it'd be nice if they could take the initiative more than they do. Time and again, the game sits there waiting for you to pick off enemies yourself; in truth, your squaddies offer little more than a means of mopping up stragglers, and a suppression device. The only thing that slows you down in the game is the inconsistent checkpointing system, where sometimes you're forced to wade through large sections without saving. If you happen to get caught out, it's a real bind to get forced back 10 or 15 minutes.

Equally disappointing is how limited the level of destruction is, especially when it has such profound implications. While it's initially great to see enemies blown to smithereens in slow motion as you rip through their cover points, the extent of what you can destroy is limited next to, say, Battlefield: Bad Company. Buildings remain impervious to attack, wrecked vehicles remain anchored to the ground, and feeble corrugated shields remain in place no matter what. Having seen what's possible in other games that have been on sale for months, there are aspects of Brothers In Arms which simply feel dated. You feel there's a great gaming concept here, but that it hasn't really moved on enough from where it was nearly four years ago.

Indeed, although the game boasts Unreal Engine 3 tech, it's by no means the most impressive use of it, and the signs of a painfully protracted development process are never that far away. AI soldiers are regularly unable to effectively pathfind, or, worse, get caught in a running loop against a wall for 10 seconds before finally working out where to go. And, as we pointed out in the preview, why was it so hard to make the German soldiers you face have any facial variety whatsoever? The sight of four bodies all piled up with the exact same faces is the sort of comedy you don't expect at this stage. While it's fair to say the environments are reasonably pretty, there's never any real wow factor about any of it. In late 2008, it's functional stuff, nothing more.

'Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway' Screenshot 4

Hell's Highway's gory slo-motion dismemberments can be switched off for the faint of heart or short of patience.

As ever, Gearbox has made a lot of noise about the narrative drive of the game, but to these English eyes, the drama consistently feels overblown, and, towards the end, really quite cringeworthy. We're supposed to feel for these guys, and for how invested they are in the decisions they make that cause the deaths of their comrades, but it feels like the writers were trying too hard to pull our heart strings.

The promise of multiplayer often helps prop up a shooter's long-term appeal, but what's served up in Hell's Highway is lightweight to say the least. Essentially there's only one fairly basic team-based multiplayer mode (playable ranked or unranked, as usual), and six medium-sized maps. Matches support either 14 or 20 players, with the usual options to toggle round and prep times, friendly fire and whether voice-chat is enabled. Set-up is as simple as selecting from the available weapons (such as sniper rifle, machine-gun and bazooka) and diving straight into a simple attack or defend match. Attackers must raise the flag, while, obviously, defenders must ensure it remains lowered. From initial impressions, there's not a huge amount to it, other than trying take out your opponents and all converging on the flag. Apart from the ability to drive a tank, the action is familiar team-based run-and-gun stuff, albeit with more emphasis on making good use of cover. A little underwhelming if we're frank - no wonder Gearbox never once talked about or showed off this side of the game prior to launch.

At this point, Brothers In Arms: Hell's Highway represents little more than a solid evolution of the original, as opposed to being the game which takes strategic World War II action to dizzy new heights. With an engaging but ultimately repetitive play mechanic at its core, it deserves a decent amount of respect, but its charms wane rather than grow as it progresses. With little more than a rooftop sniper interlude and a trio of tank driving segments to break up the flow, Hell's Highway is short on surprises after the first few hours. It's by no means a failure, but simply lacks the inspiration to make it a must-have.

7 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy

Comments (56) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • lambtron #1 3 years ago

    It looked utterly utterly boring in the preview videos.

    The worst thing a game can be.
  • FWB #2 3 years ago

    The idea really appeals to me and having played the originals I do quite like the approach to the FPS genre, but it does get very repetitive. This looks like nothing has changed, except for better graphics and a bazooka team. They really need to be moving towards a FPS version of CoH.

    No mortars to control?
    Edited by 1 at 23/09/08 @ 17:58
  • krudster #3 3 years ago

  • BravoGolf #4 3 years ago

    Wow, I remember seeing the original E3 videos and being super excited about this
  • Triggerhappytel #5 3 years ago

    This review sounds like a strong arguement for .5 decimals in reviews - really reads like a 6.5.

    Anyway, a bit of a shame, but not exactly surprising.
  • FWB #6 3 years ago

    Bazooka over mortars = lazy programming.
  • supanova #7 3 years ago

    can you call in artillery support?
  • supanova #8 3 years ago

    I recall BIA road to hill 30 getting 7/10 in the Edge on the xbox. I really enjoyed that game, played it a couple of months ago and still enjoyed the game-play. I'd like to play this through and get my own perspective.
  • krudster #9 3 years ago

    The gore isn't actually that gory at all. The headshots and accompanying slo-mo are pretty cool the first few times, but inevitably the novelty quickly wears off - all you actually see is a sort of red squishiness, rather than any horrific damage modeling. That's probably a good thing.
  • niteninja #10 3 years ago

    BIA has never been a run and gun shooter which probably doesnt appeal to arcade shooter fans.
    I always enjoyed the tactical shooters like rainbow,graw,hidden and dangerous and farcry.
    Much better than call of duty.
  • Gazza_UK #11 3 years ago

    a perfect " meh " game then, never was my cup of tea really
  • BravoGolf #12 3 years ago

    Good review, by the way, very to the point
  • makeamazing #13 3 years ago

    Getting it on the PC, which this kind of game always has the edge on PC than the console imho. Not surprised its not a major difference to the previous games. Im sure i will enjoy it.
  • demian08 #14 3 years ago

    The game is critisized for having repetitive mechanics? There is not a single great game which is not built solely on repetitive mechanics; super mario, halo, ico. Games by nature consist of a set of consistent laws; you can critisize these laws of being fundamentaly flawed, but not of being used repetitively.

    I find the level of intelligence of the reviewers working for popular sites like this, ign, gametrailers and gamespot, to name a few, quite astonishing.
    Edited by 1 at 23/09/08 @ 23:14
  • Binglybob #15 3 years ago

    Disappointing - I was hoping for a nostalgic WWII shooter-fest to reignite my passion for the genre, which was dashed by Call of Duty 3. Nevermind, £40 saved. Anyone else think the RRP for all new games should be £30 in light of the credit crunch?

    I really have not fully enjoyed a WWII as much since Medal of Honor Underground on the PSone. That really was epic.

    Bring on Wipeout HD and LBP. Everything else is irrelevant.
    Edited by 2 at 23/09/08 @ 23:17
  • Obiwanshinobi #16 3 years ago

    The game is critisized for having repetitive mechanics? There is not a single great game which is not built solely on repetitive mechanics; super mario, halo, ico.
    Didn't play Jak II, did you? Not to mention WarioWare.
  • subtlesnake #17 3 years ago

    "The game is critisized for having repetitive mechanics? There is not a single great game which is not built solely on repetitive mechanics; super mario, halo, ico. Games by nature consist of a set of consistent laws; you can critisize these laws of being fundamentaly flawed, but not of being used repetitively. "

    So your argument is that because some level of repetition is inevitable - even expected, you can never criticise a game for lacking in variation? Would it be such a big stretch to suggest that games must successfully balance established mechanics (i.e the familiar) with new and interesting design twists (i.e what is fresh and exciting), and that maybe, just maybe, BiA:HH gets this balance wrong?

    "don't ever waste your time and intelligence on a EG review, just tell the reviewer what an idiot he is. It's simpler and easier that way."

    Yes, that really tells him exactly what he did wrong.
  • WJF #18 3 years ago

    A lot of games have repetitive mechanics, but the good ones develop them as the game goes on - use them in interesting ways, make the player think, mix it up (I'm running out of cack phrases...). A really old and cheap example from the FPS genre was removing all your weapons 3/4's of the way through and putting you up against the same foes as when you had loadsabullets, creating a new challenge. That's 'mixing it up' (In a cliched and lazy way, sure). Mario introduced turtles with spikes on their backs. There's another. See? Easy.

    I get the feeling from this review (quite possibly from the words) that after the tutorial - that's it. It's just the same thing for a couple of hours with nothing new to challenge the player.

  • David_Snakes #19 3 years ago

    Yeah, Krudster, I won't waste my time with you and your shitty review. You're an idiot!

    So dude, there's gore and shit in this game. Must buy.
  • RazorObsession #20 3 years ago

    well if i see it cheap somewhere, whilst i'm waiting for the triple F week to arrive, i might give it a blast.
    (thats Fable 2, Fallout 3 and Farcry 2 all in one goddamn week)
  • makeamazing #21 3 years ago

    Yes worth buying just to make time fly waiting for Farcry and Fallout...
  • OllyJ #22 3 years ago

    Nothing about the rather impressive audio AT ALL?

    Why do reviewers never ever mention it!!!!
  • aldo_14 #23 3 years ago

    The game is critisized for having repetitive mechanics? There is not a single great game which is not built solely on repetitive mechanics; super mario, halo, ico. Games by nature consist of a set of consistent laws; you can critisize these laws of being fundamentaly flawed, but not of being used repetitively.

    I think you're a wee bit confused here between what is mechanics and what is, for lack of a better term, 'laws'. Actions and constraints upon the player can be more or less constant, but it's the mechanics - the interaction of the two required to play - that need to vary to remain fresh.

    The repetition of mechanics in the review pretty clearly refers to the game requiring reuse of the same strategy without enforced improvisation or modification throughout the game, with the only gameplay variety coming (tenuously) through scenery changes.

    Insulting someones intelligence is the first resort of the stupid person, IMO.






    ( ;-) )
  • BurningR #24 3 years ago

    "You can predictably and reliably know that as long as the screen isn't too red, you're OK."

    That sounds really boring
  • PearOfAnguish #25 3 years ago

    Oh look, someone has reacted badly to a review of a hyped game because it doesn't get awarded 10/10, and responded by questioning the abilities of the writer. What a surprise.
    Edited by 1 at 24/09/08 @ 09:11
  • UncleLou #26 3 years ago

    ""The game is critisized for having repetitive mechanics? There is not a single great game which is not built solely on repetitive mechanics"

    True. But there's a difference between a necessary degree of repetition, and a complete lack of variation. The first BiA already had the same damn "puzzle" repeated again, and again, and again. Even the often criticised Gears of War did a much better job of varying an at least similar idea with varied level design. In BiA, once you had seen one level, you had seen them all.
  • Darren #27 3 years ago

    Loved the first game on the PC, never bothered with the second as it looked far too similar, won't be bothering with this one 'cos I'm pig sick of WWII games and lost interest in this game over a year ago when it suffered delay after delay. Nice that it turned out OK but there's far too many other potentially better games demanding my money in the run up to Christmas...
  • Darren #28 3 years ago

    I noticed this review had a subtle dig at Gears of Wars cinematic but irritating running camera and quite right too... I actually avoided using it because it was so awful and actually restricted my vision, not ideal when you're running between cover under heavy fire. I really hope Epic have addressed this with the sequel, at the very least you should be able to turn it on or off IMO.
  • HolyJebus #29 3 years ago

    Ok, I think everyone has burned Demian enough for now.

    Kristan, do you think the repetitive nature of the game may not be as frustrating to people who have not played the other games in the series?
  • krudster #30 3 years ago

    It's a subjective thing. What some people find boring and repetitive others find perfectly entertaining. Sure, if you haven't played either of the previous BiAs, then you may be less bothered by this essentially being more of the same. I'm not convinced that'll make it any more desirable, though. Try before you buy if you're not sure.
  • HolyJebus #31 3 years ago

    Cheers, may be one to wait for the bargain bin. I'll wait for the reviews of FarCry to see how it compares.
  • Fleeby #32 3 years ago

    I found the original repetitive and unremarkable. This sounds like more of the same. So thanks for the warning, Krudster.
  • snafu65 #33 3 years ago

    So yet another long awaited game turns out to be average,this is getting depressing.
  • bodypopper #34 3 years ago

    Sounds like they should have bunged out another game/'mission pack' on the Xbox 1 instead and moved on to something else.
    Still optimistic about the new Aliens game though.
  • PearOfAnguish #35 3 years ago

    Try before you buy if you're not sure.

    EG in condoning piracy shocker.
  • Godz_Mercenary #36 3 years ago

    The personal insults on the reviewer are pathetic. Grow up.
  • glaeken #37 3 years ago

    I don't actually mind all these average games turning up recently. It will mean I have plenty to pick over in the bargin bins during the next games drought.
  • n3utr0n #38 3 years ago

    Another one to rent then. Somehow enjoyed The Force Unleashed a lot more knowing I didn't blow 60 quid on it.
  • spookyzombie #39 3 years ago

    I'm playing through this now and it's enjoyable. It's certainly not another average FPS. A 7/10 is about right.

  • Klinjon #40 3 years ago

    Demian 08 - "The game is critisized for having repetitive mechanics? There is not a single great game which is not built solely on repetitive mechanics; super mario, halo, ico. Games by nature consist of a set of consistent laws; you can critisize these laws of being fundamentaly flawed, but not of being used repetitively. I find the level of intelligence of the reviewers working for popular sites like this, ign, gametrailers and gamespot, to name a few, quite astonishing."

    I couldn't agree more. What I find most astonishing is how quick the members of this website have jumped all over your supposedly "insulting" comments by in turn blatantly disregarding your opinion. An ironic twist, I'm sure many of you will agree. Just because someone disagrees with the fundamental nature of a reviewers criticism doesn't mean they think that the writer is an idiot, and neither does (or should) it make their opinion any less valid.

    PearOfAnguish - "Oh look, someone has reacted badly to a review of a hyped game because it doesn't get awarded 10/10, and responded by questioning the abilities of the writer. What a surprise."

    It's not the score some of us, including myself, are questioning. That has nothing to do with the abilities of the writer, as any tom, dick, or harry can slap a score on a game based on their opinion. The nature of his criticism, in this case the "repetitve mechanics", is what is being questioned here.

    mem - "... eurogamer allways gets it right."

    If only that were true...

    Edited by 1 at 24/09/08 @ 15:03
  • UncleLou #41 3 years ago

    "I couldn't agree more. What I find most astonishing is how quick the members of this website have jumped all over your supposedly "insulting" comments by in turn blatantly disregarding your opinion."

    You don't find the "level of intelligence" comment insulting? Wow.

    And you'll find people have responded to his post despite his childish tone.
  • sneetch #42 3 years ago

    @Triggerhappytel
    "This review sounds like a strong arguement for .5 decimals in reviews - really reads like a 6.5."

    6.5? Hah, yeah, 6.5 if you like inaccuracies.

    Using my Review-a-tron 2000 (patent pending, designed with 100% real science) I can categorically state that this should be a 6.729816213.
  • cyber_nicco #43 3 years ago

    Hmm, a "7" is called middle-of-the-road by EG. I wonder why there's always so much arguing over scores. Is a 7 average, or is it a 5. Seems like whenever they give a decent game a 5, it is defended as being an average score.

    :p
  • HolyJebus #44 3 years ago

    Klinjon

    The problem with Demian's post is that by his argument a reviewer can never say that a game is repetitive or else say that every game is repetitive. In games such as Halo/Mario they generally drip feed abilities/weapons/vehicles to the player. Don't give them everything at the start as they will tire of these "mechanics" quicker.

    I don't like how often people critise the reviewers here as though they could do a better job themselves. The ideal candidates to review games would of course be previous games designers but the chance of this happening is very slim. The next best are people who play more games then almost anyone else out there. As always if you don't like the site, go elsewhere.
  • captainrentboy #45 3 years ago

    Haven't read the review through yet, but I did play the game in work today for an hour or so, and it was rediculously underwhelming and bland :/
    At least I've now only got to buy the one title this weekend, and that would be Pure.
  • local_celebrity #46 3 years ago

    Game aside, this review was so well crafted. Urbane, witty, perceptive -- and not a wasted word in sight.

    Kristan, I wish I could write like you, mate.

    My heart goes out to poor old Randy. He's been trying to talk this game up for ages now. He'll be crying big, salty tears into his Duff tonight.
  • FWB #47 3 years ago

    Does the AI ever make the attempt to assault your position?
  • spookyzombie #48 3 years ago

    Not really. They move about, but they don't hunt you down. They just tend to reposition themselves behind vaious bits of cover and try to shoot you mainly from distance.
  • BBIAJ #49 3 years ago

    I haven't tried it yet, as I only started playing this mid-afternoon yesterday, but I'm guessing the unlockable Authentic difficulty will ramp up the AI, much like the higher settings of the original BIA games did.
  • FWB #50 3 years ago

    That's pretty poor. Sounds exactly the same as the originals. Will opt out of this.
  • Farzlepot #51 3 years ago

    Glad I cancelled my pre-order the other day...
  • FTM #52 3 years ago

    I just pre-ordered (on the PC)

    I loved the 1st 2 so more of the same with better graphics is fine by me

    plus I will never get tired of virtually firing an m1 garand..dont know why..I think my brain is broken
  • sneetch #53 3 years ago

    @demian08
    "The game is critisized for having repetitive mechanics? There is not a single great game which is not built solely on repetitive mechanics; super mario, halo, ico. Games by nature consist of a set of consistent laws; you can critisize these laws of being fundamentaly flawed, but not of being used repetitively."

    Ah, philosophy. There's a world of difference between the "standard" level of repetition all games have and a game that feels repetitive from early on. For example, after you get your first star in Super Mario Galaxy you don't think, "great, now I have to grind out another 59/119 stars". It doesn't feel like a boring chore because it's immediately fun and the challenges and worlds are varied enough that you don't focus on the fact that it's basically 1) enter world 2) get star 3) goto 1. Now if every world was just a slight variation on the previous one, same graphics, same basic layout, same actions required to get the star then SMG would have felt repetitive quite early.

    The games that postpone that sense of "man, I've been doing the same thing for hours" are the real gems, this can be done in many different ways, a change of scenery, change of enemies and enemy attack "patterns", change of pacing or simply through timely plot progression. It's all in the timing; one or two enemy emplacements too many before something "new" happens and the illusion is shattered and find yourself thinking, "man, I've been doing the same thing for hours".

    I could carry on but instead I'd recommend people read what Kristan says here rather than just leaping on his use of the word repetitive (my emphasis):

    "The game's biggest problem is simply a crushing lack of variety. Set over ten chapters, by the time you're four or five chapters in, the sense of grinding repetition really sets in, with the only major difference being the setting. With the enemy permanently set up in predictable formation in front of you, it really does just become a case of picking off the cannon fodder, blasting through weak defenses, flanking and repeating until bored."

    From the sound of that I'd imagine that this game would feel repetitive far sooner than SMG, for example, by its very nature it's slower; you are forced by necessity to move at the games pace you move up a bit, you have to stop, find, fix, flank and finish (from the first game IIRC). If nothing else the slower pace gives the player more time to focus on the overly repetitive nature of the game.

    Edit: My brain is a bit scrambled ATM.
    Edited by 1 at 25/09/08 @ 14:11
  • clockworkzombie #54 3 years ago

    I am renting this from the local vid store. Excellent fun, not frustrating either.


    First BIA I have played. I notice the first two are out as a double pack for the wii, would it be worth buying?
  • p00ntang #55 3 years ago

    Personally I think this game is excellent, but I enjoyed Full Spectrum Warrior too.
  • metalangel #56 3 years ago

    So, it is exactly the same as the (tedious, linear) original, then. Where you had to put in a cheat to switch the ludicrous 'suppression' indicators that both gave away every foe's position AND how long you had before they'd pop out to start shooting at you. Hell, even with these off, your squadmates would still somehow know when the Nazis were about to pop out again.

    I am surprised that in three years they've basically made the same game yet again.