Jump to navigation

Table of contents

Page Previous 1 2 Next

Advertisement

Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway Review

Xbox 360 PC PlayStation 3 Review by Kristan Reed

23 September, 2008

Page 2 of 2. <- Page 1

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 our Scoring Policy

Advertisement

Are you excited about Brothers In Arms: Hell's Highway on PlayStation 3/Xbox 360/PC?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games

Thanks!

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

Comments: 1-50 of 57 in total | next 50 »

Poster
Comment Low-scoring comments hidden. Log in to see them!
lambtron
23/09/08 @ 16:38
#1
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
It looked utterly utterly boring in the preview videos.

The worst thing a game can be.
FWB
23/09/08 @ 16:44
#2
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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 1 times, most recently on 23/09/08 @ 17:58
krudster [mod]
23/09/08 @ 16:50
#3
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
No mortars, no.
BravoGolf
23/09/08 @ 16:53
#4
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Wow, I remember seeing the original E3 videos and being super excited about this
Triggerhappytel
23/09/08 @ 16:53
#5
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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
23/09/08 @ 16:56
#6
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Bazooka over mortars = lazy programming.
kelly's_h
23/09/08 @ 16:58
#7
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I was super exited too. A little disappointed but think I will still give it a try some time. But to be perfectly honest it's the gore that caught my eye.
supanova
23/09/08 @ 16:59
#8
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
can you call in artillery support?
supanova
23/09/08 @ 17:02
#9
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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 [mod]
23/09/08 @ 17:04
#10
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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
23/09/08 @ 17:10
#11
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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
23/09/08 @ 17:11
#12
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
a perfect " meh " game then, never was my cup of tea really
BravoGolf
23/09/08 @ 17:12
#13
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Good review, by the way, very to the point
makeamazing
23/09/08 @ 21:28
#14
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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
23/09/08 @ 22:10
#15
-1
You buried this comment
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.

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 1 times, most recently on 23/09/08 @ 23:14
Binglybob
23/09/08 @ 22:14
#16
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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 2 times, most recently on 23/09/08 @ 23:17
Obiwanshinobi
23/09/08 @ 22:24
#17
-1
You buried this comment
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.
Didn't play Jak II, did you? Not to mention WarioWare.
subtlesnake
23/09/08 @ 23:27
#18
0
You buried this comment
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. "

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
23/09/08 @ 23:46
#19
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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
24/09/08 @ 00:50
#20
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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
24/09/08 @ 02:16
#21
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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
24/09/08 @ 06:24
#22
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Yes worth buying just to make time fly waiting for Farcry and Fallout...
OllyJ
24/09/08 @ 06:54
#23
+1
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Nothing about the rather impressive audio AT ALL?

Why do reviewers never ever mention it!!!!
aldo_14
24/09/08 @ 06:57
#24
0
You buried this comment
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.

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
24/09/08 @ 07:55
#25
-1
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"You can predictably and reliably know that as long as the screen isn't too red, you're OK."

That sounds really boring
PearOfAnguish
24/09/08 @ 08:10
#26
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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 1 times, most recently on 24/09/08 @ 09:11
UncleLou
24/09/08 @ 08:19
#27
0
You buried this comment
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"

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
24/09/08 @ 09:29
#28
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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
24/09/08 @ 09:33
#29
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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
24/09/08 @ 10:07
#30
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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 [mod]
24/09/08 @ 10:26
#31
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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
24/09/08 @ 10:48
#32
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Cheers, may be one to wait for the bargain bin. I'll wait for the reviews of FarCry to see how it compares.
Fleeby
24/09/08 @ 11:33
#33
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I found the original repetitive and unremarkable. This sounds like more of the same. So thanks for the warning, Krudster.
snafu65
24/09/08 @ 11:37
#34
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
So yet another long awaited game turns out to be average,this is getting depressing.
bodypopper
24/09/08 @ 11:42
#35
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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
24/09/08 @ 11:46
#36
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Try before you buy if you're not sure.

EG in condoning piracy shocker.
Godz_Mercenary
24/09/08 @ 11:52
#37
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
The personal insults on the reviewer are pathetic. Grow up.
glaeken
24/09/08 @ 12:06
#38
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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
24/09/08 @ 12:30
#39
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Another one to rent then. Somehow enjoyed The Force Unleashed a lot more knowing I didn't blow 60 quid on it.
spookyzombie
24/09/08 @ 13:29
#40
+1
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I'm playing through this now and it's enjoyable. It's certainly not another average FPS. A 7/10 is about right.

Klinjon
24/09/08 @ 14:02
#41
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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 1 times, most recently on 24/09/08 @ 15:03
UncleLou
24/09/08 @ 14:16
#42
0
You buried this comment
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."

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
24/09/08 @ 15:21
#43
+1
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@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
24/09/08 @ 15:47
#44
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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
24/09/08 @ 17:12
#45
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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
24/09/08 @ 17:29
#46
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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
24/09/08 @ 21:51
#47
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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
24/09/08 @ 23:06
#48
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Does the AI ever make the attempt to assault your position?
spookyzombie
25/09/08 @ 02:22
#49
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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
25/09/08 @ 09:41
#50
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
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.

Comments: 1-50 of 57 in total | next 50 »

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

X View gallery