Jump to navigation
Advertisement

Brothers In Arms: Road To Hill 30 Review

PC PlayStation 2 Xbox
Review by Kristan Reed

31 March, 2005

Regular visitors to these hallowed pages will know by now that we've got very mixed feelings about the ongoing videogaming obsession with World War II. In short, it's gone beyond merely lacking the imagination to come up with something vaguely new, and descended into the realms of exasperating self parody where game publishers are only too happy to sign developers connected with Call Of Valor: Medal Of Duty. The thing is, however much we mock, the public just lap it up. It's a veritable money-printing machine.

This feeding frenzy on famous conflicts know no bounds, so it hardly came as a surprise when a well-known game developer asked us recently for our thoughts on whether they should do a World War II game. It was a dicey moment where those jovial 'mixed' feelings could have so easily spilled over into an explosion of Hulkian rage. It's all right for them. They don't have to review 48 of the buggers every single year. There are only so many wars the average game reviewer can fight before the ugly symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder begin to peep above the parapet.

Oh what a lovely war

'Brothers In Arms: Road To Hill 30' Screenshot 1

And so onto part 123 of our love affair with everyone's favourite war. You'd probably imagine that we're battle-weary, cynical and closed-minded to the idea of another WWII-based title. You know, we ought to be by now. The difference is the difference. Brothers In Arms is unlike any other WW2 game we've ever played, feeling more like a logical progression from Full Spectrum Warrior than another tired, linear, corridor-based run and gun.

As the title illustrates rather neatly, the focus in Brothers In Arms is around the events of the eight days leading up to the climactic battle of Hill 30 on June 13th 1944. Kicking off briefly in the midst of an intense struggle on that very day, the game quickly flashes back to the start of this epic campaign on D-Day; June 6th. With obvious narrative influence from the excellent Band Of Brothers TV show each mission kicks off with white text on a black screen, with the sombre delivery of Sgt Matt Baker regaling his inner hopes and fears of how he never asked to be squad leader, that 13 men and 13 families were relying on him, and the acknowledgement that 13 was definitely not a lucky number to be associated with.

Although there is a tutorial should you require one, Brothers In Arms neatly sidesteps such a contrived approach by gradually filling you in on all you need to know as and when you require. The first and most important element that distances BIA from the herd is your ability to tactically direct squad mates quickly and efficiently. Rather like FSW, you have the facility to move your men between cover points and attack targets with precision and ease. The difference is that this time you're also fully in control of a soldier in the true FPS sense as well, which makes the whole experience much more involving, more personal, opens up far more ways to tackle each mission and is therefore less of a contrived puzzle game where you never get to pull the trigger.

Let's see the whites of your eyes

'Brothers In Arms: Road To Hill 30' Screenshot 2

As much as we loved Pandemic's gem for what it was, there was always the sense that you wanted to see the whites of the enemy's eyes and not merely bark instructions from the sidelines. Likewise, BIA scores extra points for being one of the few war games where your squad mates aren't just pointless cinematic cannon fodder like all the rest. If you try to play BIA like a traditional 'lone wolf' one-man-against-the-world FPS you'll almost certainly die within seconds. At its best, BIA is enthralling, tactical, strategic, logical, and very satisfying.

Should you require it, BIA even offers up a Situational Awareness mode that allows you to pause the game in an instant and effectively peruse your surroundings from a scalable, rotatable isometric view. Any enemies you've already spotted will appear behind their cover points, and it effectively gives you an extra chance to plot your strategy ahead of time. To be honest, although it seemed initially like a good idea, we found it a bit clunky to navigate around and gave up using it pretty quickly. Still: credit to Gearbox for trying.

One of the key gameplay components crucial to how BIA works is the use of a Suppression Indicator that looks a bit like a pie chart above the heads of the enemy. As soon as you see an enemy soldier the icon appears right above them to show you how likely they are to fire at you, and - ultimately - how accurate they will be. Initially the indicator will be red to indicate that the enemy is at his most dangerous, but commanding your men to rain suppressive fire at them reduces the threat of the enemy in terms of their ability to fire back and their accuracy. Doing so gradually turns the icon grey, and with the enemy pinned down behind cover you'll be able to take advantage of their weakness and outflank them. The flexibility of the game means you can either do the flanking yourself and be the daring hero or direct your squaddies to go and take them out while you bask in the safer role of suppresser behind cover. Later on you might even have the added benefit of a tank or second Assault Team squad to add to your suppression-specialist Fire Team to aid you with your dirty flanking work, but it certainly feels more fun being able to creep up on unsuspecting enemies and cap them while they're busy spouting Deutsch at us. We'll never tire of that.

Couldn't hit a barn door with a rocket launcher?

'Brothers In Arms: Road To Hill 30' Screenshot 3

A slight dose of realism has also been added to the basic shooting mechanics as well, with the default first-person 'shoot from the hip' view giving you virtually no chance of getting a shot on target. Hitting the aim button lets you look down the sight of the gun, and is realistically the only way to guarantee you'll be able to shoot straight. Even so, the drift of the gun is so pronounced (compared to other similar, more forgiving games) that almost every time you pull the trigger you'll be wrestling the sight back towards your intended target once again.

As with real fire fights, going into a crouched position makes you even more accurate, but at the expense of speed - meaning your degree of cover is all important at virtually all times, and unlike every other FPS out there, there are no "magic" health packs to bring you back to life, or even a 100 unit health bar to monitor how close to death you are (instead the HUD displays health in colour-coded terms; with green meaning healthy through to red for danger). Gearbox clearly doesn't subscribe to the notion of playing it by the accepted FPS rules, and for the most part the game is all the better because of it.

But although all of this dogged adherence to supposed 'realism' might sound like a recipe for a nightmare of a game where you're always struggling to make progress, Gearbox has been mindful to keep the frustration factor to a relative minimum. For a start there are four difficulty levels, with Normal perfectly pitched between offering a decent challenge and trying to sustain the player's motivation. For example, although you can't manually save your progress, the game keeps the tension high by checkpointing sensibly, and supplements this system by offering the player the opportunity to heal once you've failed a particular section three times in a row. Not only that, but any incapacitated squad mates will reappear, making the task ahead that much easier. To paraphrase the game itself, War isn't fair, but this is after all a videogame - games are supposed to be fun, and BIA makes sure you're not going to give up that easily on the 12 hour, 17 level quest. And for good measure there are plenty of unlockables to enjoy if you can be bothered to go back and tackle the game on higher difficulty settings, such as documentaries and aerial photographs to illustrate just how closely the game matches its real life setting.

Twisting by the pool of blood

'Brothers In Arms: Road To Hill 30' Screenshot 4

Possibly the only things that lets down an otherwise top class package is some occasionally brainless suicidal AI ("please shoot me, oh go on. Coo-ie! Nazi over here!"), a few, mercifully rare path-finding hitches that send squad mates scurrying off to their doom when a safer route seemed more obvious, and visuals which stray sometimes into the realm of 'last gen' when held up next to some of the more recent games doing the rounds in the FPS genre. Unfair comparison, maybe, and it's obvious the game's console focus is to blame here, but nevertheless it's a moot point that PC owners have to accept as one of the realities of modern, multiformat game development. Even so, the game has a few tricks up its sleeve - notably the way bullets kick up dust and debris, and the excellent visual effects used to convey being shot and injured, with the screen briefly being sprayed with blood or some other vision-obscuring filter. The way you get knocked for six when a grenade goes off nearby is similarly outstanding.

Overall there's a general pleasant misty-eyed appeal about the whole thing, with Gearbox clearly guilty of a fondness for bright shades of green against a backdrop of shattered villages and rural desolation. It's easily up there with Call Of Duty, with well animated characters that take sensible cover and always react to danger and respond in kind. BIA always delivers a sound, convincing attention to detail, but doesn't get near, say, Pacific Assault in most respects. Not that it matters, as it's better than all of its rivals for atmosphere, playability and the sheer suspension of disbelief that none of these formulaic pretenders can pull off. Sometimes you have to defend a game's weaknesses for all the other strengths it possesses, and BIA seems to excel in most of the areas that really count.

For once, even the audio deserves praise, with a deliberate lack of pointless sweeping strings in-game making it much more about the endlessly varied squad chatter and the deafening roar of the guns than about the movie-esque score. Gearbox left that for the menus, thank goodness. Yes, maybe the voice acting is a little earnest and serious, but you have to agree the schmaltz is a mere fraction of its rivals. If we weren't so jaded by this endlessly repeated approach we'd probably be moved to observe that it's pretty good. We're still bothered about the obsession with the US' role in the war, though. Anyone would think they won it single-handedly if you learned your history through playing videogames.

Walk of Life

'Brothers In Arms: Road To Hill 30' Screenshot 5

Ahem. Once you're done with the single-player fun, it's our happy duty to report that there's a grand multiplayer experience awaiting that is far more than some of the usual tacked-on efforts that we generally find ourselves reporting on. If anything it's an almost unique multiplayer FPS challenge for managing to retain the squad control aspects of the single-player game. Sporting 10 maps, games can be set up for up to four players with the general objective being to demolish a key target over the other side of the map. Every player gets to take charge of one or two squads, with the added bonus of being able to take charge of another squad member should you cop it in the battle - unlike the single-player version which only lets you control Sgt Baker. Also, should your entire team get wiped out you start over at the original spawn position.

Much like the single-player element, the beauty of it is the ability to play it however you want, either going for all out rushes or a more strategic squad-based approach. We reckon the real winners will be the ones who master their strategy though, as BIA is far from simply a game where the sharpest shooters win out. Being handy with a gun will help, obviously, but it's not the be all and end all, and as such gets our vote for doing something refreshingly different with the genre.

And on that note, we have our faith in World War II games utterly, comprehensively restored. It seems incredible that such a saturated genre can still produce something fresh, but Gearbox deserves big manly bear hugs and ferocious slaps on the back for delivering on its promises. Its current chart success is well deserved, and for those of you bored of Medal Of Honor and jaded about Call Of Duty's me-too approach and stubbornly unconvinced that Brothers In Arms really doesn't offer anything new, we suggest you try it. You might just love it.

9/10

Read our Scoring Policy

Advertisement

Are you excited about Brothers In Arms: Road to Hill 30 on PlayStation 2/Xbox?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games

Thanks!

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

Comments: 1-50 of 68 in total | next 50 »

Poster
Comment Low-scoring comments hidden. Log in to see them!
davyuk
31/03/05 @ 13:08
#1
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Sometimes you play a game that everyone else and their uncle thinks is the biz, but you think is crud. This is that game for me.

I really don't 'get' it. It looks crud, and is repetative to the point of boredom. Needless to say I've traded my copy.
UncleLou
31/03/05 @ 13:14
#2
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I first found it quite mediocre, then it got a bit better, but I stopped playing it for some reason. Hm. It has to get a lot better to live up to a 9 though. ;)
bivith
31/03/05 @ 13:22
#3
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Why is Joey Deacon reviewing this game?
jellyhead
31/03/05 @ 13:23
#4
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I've enjoyed it, i treat it as an action/puzzle game.
Sure it has some issues but it's much better than i thought it would be and it's so easy to actually play (not complete just play) that i really enjoy firing it up for 30 mins to have a bash at a level in between bouts of Mario 64DS.
Not worth a 9 though, just doesn't have that special feel for a 9'er, for me it's definately an 8 though.
Well worth a go if you fancy something a bit more cerebral with your FPS's.

Edit: "it's an definately"!? - bad zoot, naughty zoot.
I've played the PC version, just to clarify things, haven't played it on console yet.

/ my 2p
Edited 2 times, most recently on 31/03/05 @ 14:40
Stevas mkII
31/03/05 @ 13:30
#5
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Word of warning to those considering buying this: there's noticable tearing and shearing in the Xbox version, but that doesn't even compare to the mess of glitching that is masquerading as a PS2 'game'.
Wobbler
31/03/05 @ 13:31
#6
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
What are the console versions of this like? How does it work on a controller? I'm not a fan of console FPSs -- Halo included -- but I did like the XBox version of Full-Spectrum Warrior.
Darren
31/03/05 @ 13:48
#7
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
BIA is a great game more so on the Xbox than on the PC. Console owners generally have to put up with WWII dross like the dire Medal of Honor games and the desperately bland Call of Duty. BIA is like a breath of fresh air, not perfect but perfectly playable and enjoyable.
statix101
31/03/05 @ 13:51
#8
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Sorry, i gave up on it after 45mins, thouroughly average imo, been there, done that, WWII...YAWN ZZzzzzz.....
Usual crap looking Unreal engine, mind numbing RTS type sections, lousy weapon models and sounds,laughable animations..etc..etc

COD2 will show us how WWII should be done.
wattoo
31/03/05 @ 13:55
#9
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I've finished this on Normal and am now playing it again on the hard level, but only because I have nothing else to play.

So far

1. For a game that prides itself on the suppress and flank maneuvre, the Germans have never tried to flank me from their initial fighting points, meaning you can actually sit there and pick them off, ultimately eradicating any tension of being involved in a 'tug of war' style suppression fight.

2. I thought this suppress and flank would be one of many features of the game, instead of the same repetative mechanic over and over again.

3. I find I have to flank the Germans myself because I find I only have two distances to send my squad, stupidly close or stupidly far (I think it's down to the undulation of the terrain and the height of the player).


Yes it's more realistic than Call of Duty's me against everyone approach, but for enjoyment and gameplay, I'd take CoD every time over this.
krudster [mod]
31/03/05 @ 14:00
#10
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Sorry, but as much as I can appreciate CoD is the finest WW2 game of its type, I've been there and done that about 12 times now; I think people deserve something a little bit new and this delivers it.

I agree on the point about Germans not trying to flank you; but can you imagine how complicated this would be to design - fundamentally this is an action puzzle game, and having the opponent working against you would just make it insanely difficult to pull off without making it overly tough for the player.
MikeD
31/03/05 @ 14:02
#11
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
9 out of 10?

Do you have a new girlfriend Krudster?
Edited 1 times, most recently on 31/03/05 @ 15:03
markypants
31/03/05 @ 14:04
#12
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I agree with Davyuk on this one. Bought it because of the rants and raves, and thought it was OK at best. Very repetative, very average, and the voice acting was painfully bad.

I traded it for FIFA Street... Only joking! I traded it for MGS3.
Decoded
31/03/05 @ 14:06
#13
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Didn't like it either, bored me to tears. And yes, the tearing on the Xbox version was pretty bad.
wattoo
31/03/05 @ 14:08
#14
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I fall into the category of people not yet jaded with the WW2 FPS as it's my favourite sub genre, but when I played through this it just felt like something was missing, like the game hadn't got started yet.

I also don't think this would have been too tricky to design as they effectively did it for multiplayer with their 'lattice of fun'. I realise you wouldn't want to be involved in this tug of war every time you confronted the enemy, but it would have been nice to be involved in a fight against something approaching intelligence once a level instead of what turned out to be co-op space invaders with better graphics.
UncleLou
31/03/05 @ 14:08
#15
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
but it certainly feels more fun being able to creep up on unsuspecting enemies and cap them while they're busy spouting Deutsch at us. We'll never tire of that.


Well, I tired of that pretty quickly, mostly because they keep repeating the same 2 or 3 lines over and over again (and in a not very convincing manner). :-/
UncleLou
31/03/05 @ 14:12
#16
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
It's a funny thing with BiA, all reviewers seem to love it, but all the "leisure gamers" think it's a bit average. Pretty unique. :)
MikeD
31/03/05 @ 14:15
#17
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
It's a funny thing with BiA, all reviewers seem to love it, but all the "leisure gamers" think it's a bit average. Pretty unique. :)

It certainly is. I haven't met a single person who has been blown away by it as reviewers have.

Maybe because it does things a little differently it's a breath of fresh air for reviewers while gamers can just see it's not a very enthralling/exciting game.
cov
31/03/05 @ 14:29
#18
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I can see why many gamers might not like BiA but I personally agree with the review. Perhaps because I come from a strategy/wargaming background but also love FPS this combines the best of both and has a 'realism' factor missing in many games. For me it is a 9 but I can see for many it would be a 6 or 7. One of those either it has that x factor for you or it doesn't :)
MoFo
31/03/05 @ 14:55
#19
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Doesn't seem to be much in the way of WWII FPS action on the horizon so this one has enough in my opinion to keep the nazi killers happy. I'd personally give it a 7. Enjoyed for a couple of hours then not had the desire to go back to it since.
RPD
31/03/05 @ 15:00
#20
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
It is cool man
BBIAJ
31/03/05 @ 15:13
#21
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Painfully bad voice acting!? Are you mental!?
FooAtari
31/03/05 @ 15:18
#22
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I am really enjoying this. The whole game is pretty much based on the surpression and flanking theme but I dont think that it has been used in a game before, not this well anyway.
Great shooter IMO and much better than most of the shooters on the xbox, including halo 2 :)
pjmaybe
31/03/05 @ 15:21
#23
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Just got a copy free from a blokey at work who's actually getting rid of his entire games collection (you're too late, the best stuff's gone) so I nabbed this...

More impressions tomorrow but from the looks of it, it doesn't look like it brings anything new to the table.

A 9 though? Better than h...


Peej
Dant
31/03/05 @ 15:22
#24
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
So this gets the same score as RE4?
I think Eurogamer should switch to scoring in %`ages, This would get around an 87% and RE4 would get 96%
drks
31/03/05 @ 15:26
#25
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
hm, for me it's an ok game, but nothing special.. a 9 puzzles me considering oddworld sw got a 7.
rogermellie
31/03/05 @ 15:28
#26
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
It was a toss up between this and Silent Hunter III. SH3 won.

I like the idea of BIA and I might pick it up later. It does sounds like Rainbow Six within a WWII setting.

I would love it in games if the enemy could counter attack. I'm not quite bored with WWII just yet thanks to Red Orchestra.
UncleLou
31/03/05 @ 15:42
#27
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Just got a copy free from a blokey at work who's actually getting rid of his entire games collection (you're too late, the best stuff's gone) so I nabbed this...

Why is he doing this? Giving up gaming, I suppose (seeing that he also got rid of a new game like BiA)?
jmctavish
31/03/05 @ 16:10
#28
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I've been enjoying this so far for the Xbox, but I hate trying to through grenades with the white button. The black and white buttons on the Xbox pad must be the stupidest creations in gaming besides the jizzmodo.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 31/03/05 @ 17:12
Feanor
31/03/05 @ 16:13
#29
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"We're still bothered about the obsession with the US' role in the war, though."

Of course, that's Britain's own fault for not making enough of their own WWII games. Plus, Medal of Honor:Underground did have a French lady as the main character.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 31/03/05 @ 17:26
Bezzy
31/03/05 @ 16:31
#30
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Gave me tunnel vision. There's this bit where your squad mates run off, and you can't follow them THANKS TO AN INVISIBLE WALL!

This kinda panzer-dead-ahead bullshit just kills these kinds of games for me. It's like a hollywood director's idea of "interactive movies". Christ.

Well done for adding squad ordering, but it's about fucking time, ain't it?
MikeD
31/03/05 @ 17:05
#31
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Well done for adding squad ordering, but it's about fucking time, ain't it?

If that means that in every fps from now on we are a sergeant/lieutenant who controls a squad with tacked on tactical system, then it bloody well wan't, no!
rogermellie
31/03/05 @ 17:27
#32
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
some kid: 'Day of deafeat is by far the best WW2 mod mate.'

Thanks, I'll give it a try.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 31/03/05 @ 18:28
Burton2000
31/03/05 @ 18:32
#33
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
bit of a noob question buts wat tearing?
redzero
31/03/05 @ 19:58
#34
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
tearing...
didnt read the review, Im here for the comments :) but tearing is usually when you see a texture at breakup/shift as you walk past it in a game. It happens a lot if you have VSync off on a pc, as the screen fps is faster than the monitor can handle.
spiny
31/03/05 @ 20:03
#35
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I've played the PC version on "Difficult" & thououghly enjoyed it. Probably go through again on Authentic. Good review, hits all the right points.
kentmonkey
31/03/05 @ 20:27
#36
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Dant wrote:
"So this gets the same score as RE4?
I think Eurogamer should switch to scoring in %`ages, This would get around an 87% and RE4 would get 96% "

Please, never, ever do this. We'll get to the stage of every magazine that reviews say Game 1 in April & gives it 88%, then reviews Game 2 in May & gives it 85% but says in it's comments that it's marginally better than Game 2. Yeah cos obviously games have moved on so much in one month that you can give a game that is better 3% less. OR we could get into the realms of Gamesmaster, where they now do things like:

Graphics 72%
Gameplay 74%
Longevity 70%
Overall 82%

How exactly does that work out?

My preference, get rid of scores altogether & have a summary sentence at the end.
Bezzy
31/03/05 @ 21:30
#37
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
MikeD, you are right. Interestso you are even righter.

Same basic problem as Starwars Commandos. Scripted tactics is not tactics. "Multi path levels" are not "open", while we're at it, Same Fisher!
Xerx3s
31/03/05 @ 21:41
#38
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
*g* and here i was thinking that this was just another one of those €A "games", untill i read the info bit on the bottom. Now i might actually consider wasting time one reading up on this game. FFS. :P
L0cky
01/04/05 @ 00:48
#39
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Why does it seem krud was feeling peer pressure on this one, 9 is bit much.

It's alright, 7-8 is a bit more realistic. I'm quite disappointed to be honest, what with every reviewer on the planet giving it at least a 9, yet everyone else seems to agree it's 'above average but not mind blowing and at least a touch repetitive'.

Maybe gearbox let loose a genetically engineered behaviour modifying virus at key gaming events where the press was present. Or maybe they're just working on the game; it sounds kinda fun.
DrZaius
01/04/05 @ 01:17
#40
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Looks like a worthy WW2 game.

The graphics of Pacific Assualt were great, but damn that game was frustrating.

Also, i loved the Dire Straights homage Kristan :)
BremXJones
01/04/05 @ 10:04
#41
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Innovative WW2 game seems shockingly unpopular.

Depressed, but not really surprised. I'd have given it a 9 too.

KG
FooAtari
01/04/05 @ 10:20
#42
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
" So this gets the same score as RE4?
I think Eurogamer should switch to scoring in %`ages, This would get around an 87% and RE4 would get 96%"

No no no, how the hell can u, for example, decide if a game is a 8.8 or 8.9. Scores are stupid anyway, that argument about RE4 being better than BIA but getting the same score woulnt have even come up if their had been no scores.

Most people completely forget the review when they see the score. Also a review is one persons opinion and if it wasnt the same person that reviewed the game the scores may well be different, even if its the same person he may have different view than you.
MikeD
01/04/05 @ 10:31
#43
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Innovative WW2 game seems shockingly unpopular.

Depressed, but not really surprised. I'd have given it a 9 too.


That's probably because you are a reviewer.

And innovative, booo! It's just a simplified Full Spectrum Warrior system tacked on, which wasn't so great to begin with. And is repetitive and boring here

But that's not the most important thing. What's important is how much fun a game is, and this game is only moderately fun. It doesn't keep you coming back for more. THAT's what a review should be based on. Not 'oh look it does something different, 9/10!'

Also the story parts are so campily dramatic. Very poorly written. (though as the review states it does at least keep them to a minimum. Still, Hire a fucking writer next time. Your C++ programmers do not have writing talent, gearbox!)


So you go be depressed and think about why it's mostly only reviewers that love the game so exaggeretedly much. Maybe it's that you have to come back for more that you don't notice that the game doesn't get you to come back for more.
UncleLou
01/04/05 @ 10:35
#44
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Innovative WW2 game seems shockingly unpopular.

Depressed, but not really surprised. I'd have given it a 9 too.

KG


You imply that we, the gamers, don't want innovation. Which is, frankly, bollocks. Most people in this thread criticise the game for having a formulaic level design, the same sort of puzzle over and over again, a not really good AI, and many minor flaws like invisible level barriers, weird animations and some bad voice acting. Noone criticised the game for trying something new, we just criricised it for the flawed execution.

This "depressed, but not surprised" comment is a tad annoying, to be honest.
UncleLou
01/04/05 @ 10:36
#45
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Har, I wrote this before I saw your reply, MikeD. :D
BremXJones
01/04/05 @ 10:42
#46
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
" Brem: yes, ofcourse, you're a reviewer too.. :)"

It's a CONSPIRACY! :)

KG
BremXJones
01/04/05 @ 10:51
#47
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Lou: It was meant to be annoying. I'm annoyed with you.

Seriously: People say they want innovation, but never seem to like it when they get it, rather *actually* getting excited over highly efficient retreads of familiar ground. What people SAY they want bears no relation to what they actually *do* want. One of my most depressing moments was at an E3 when the biggest single cheer from the assembled Gamers was when it was revealed Halo 2 would feature DUAL WIELD WEAPONS.

Oh no! That's a paradigm shift, for sure.

I played Brother in Arms primarily crouched behind a wall, waving at my mates. I've never done that in an FPS before. Compared to the average post-MoH FPS-as-roller-coaster, it's HUGELY innovative. And it's not just a piece-meal evolution - they've built the game, from the ground up, to be about their view of what combat should (or could) be. It's not just some feature thrown built on top of the standard template, but rather a fundamental change to the genre. There's nothing quite like it (even Full Spectrum Warrior). By abstracting the process of combat slightly it feels far more convincing than the hollywoodisms of its peers.

KG
MikeD
01/04/05 @ 10:52
#48
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
You conveyed the message better anyway, unclelou. And I am glad to see I wasn't the only one annoyed. :-)
MikeD
01/04/05 @ 10:56
#49
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
You explain yourself well, Mr. Gillen.

But that doesn't stop the game from becoming a big bore soon enough.

And E3 and it's Halo 2 presentation? Nobody thought that sucked more than I did. Not the point at all here.

Innovation works on several levels. You say they built the game from the ground up on this combat principle. Well, that's one way to innovate. But some innovation from one level to the next, so it would actually stay exciting would have helped a lot more.

Let it come in piecemeal, if that means we get more exciting/better games. Because int he end innovation should only serve to advance the gaming genre, to make things better, more enjoyable. More involved. Which is exactly the opposite what this game does. It takes a new principle (and not introduced in this game) and focuses completely on it. While neglecting most of the other factors which turn games from average to classic.

A sequel has already been announced for the end of the year. I hope to god they gave it to another developer. One that can take Gearbox's 'innovative' concept and make an actual good game with it. If that happens, then you may haul out the 9 out of 10 scores. Now it just reeks of rewarding a concept more than a game. A concept is not what people want to spend 45 euros on, thank you very much.

If reviewers can't see that maybe they need one of them 'paradigm shifts'.
Edited 2 times, most recently on 01/04/05 @ 12:47
Stevas mkII
01/04/05 @ 11:00
#50
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"Most people in this thread criticise the game for having a formulaic level design, the same sort of puzzle over and over again, a not really good AI, and many minor flaws like invisible level barriers, weird animations and some bad voice acting."

And the tearing, Uncle.
Don't forget the tearing.

Comments: 1-50 of 68 in total | next 50 »

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

X View gallery