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.

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.

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.

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.

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
You may also like...
-
Motorola Xoom 2 Tablet Reviews
-
Happy Action Theater Review
-
ModNation Racers: Road Trip Review
-
Call of Duty: Black Ops has best game ending ever, says Guinness World Records
-
Why Devs Owe You Nothing
-
Sony confirms PS Vita 1st Party digital only game prices
-
Sony explains PlayStation Vita game price strategy
-
Rockstar mulling LA Noire 2 development
-
Dear Esther Review
-
Face-Off: Final Fantasy 13-2
-
Halo 4 Master Chief action figure flaunts new suit design
-
Mojang: no plans for Minecraft on Vita
-
DICE working on multiple Battlefield 3 fixes
-
3DS Ambassador Super Mario Bros. game updated
-
The Witcher 2: Enhanced Edition Xbox 360 trailer
-
Who Killed Rare?
-
Digital Foundry: PS3 Skyrim Lag Fixed?
-
Mass Effect 3 Demo: The First 20 Minutes
-
Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning Review
-
EGTV: Eurogamer playtests PlayStation Vita
-
Gotham City Impostors Review
-
Tim Schafer: publishers aren't evil
-
App of the Day: Monkey Bump
-
Apple begins Foxconn factories inspections
-
Ridge Racer Unbounded delayed by four weeks









Comments (56) Latest comment 3 years ago
Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
The worst thing a game can be.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
No mortars to control?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Anyway, a bit of a shame, but not exactly surprising.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I always enjoyed the tactical shooters like rainbow,graw,hidden and dangerous and farcry.
Much better than call of duty.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
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.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
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.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Didn't play Jak II, did you? Not to mention WarioWare.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
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.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
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.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
So dude, there's gore and shit in this game. Must buy.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
(thats Fable 2, Fallout 3 and Farcry 2 all in one goddamn week)
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Why do reviewers never ever mention it!!!!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
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.
(
Comment below viewing threshold Show
That sounds really boring
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
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.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
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?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Still optimistic about the new Aliens game though.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
EG in condoning piracy shocker.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
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...
Comment below viewing threshold Show
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.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
"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.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
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.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
At least I've now only got to buy the one title this weekend, and that would be Pure.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
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.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
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
Comment below viewing threshold Show
"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.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
First BIA I have played. I notice the first two are out as a double pack for the wii, would it be worth buying?
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I am surprised that in three years they've basically made the same game yet again.