Brothers in Arms: opinions please

[UltraProAnti]

Anyone played BIA yet? Picked up the PC version today and played a bit of the start. The reviews are saying it's pretty good and not just another generic WW2 FPS. The situational view is fairly cool, but overall I haven't been impressed so far. For a start, I think the UT2 engine was a poor choice TBH. The game doesn't look as good as the movies and screens suggested, and it certainly isn't as good-looking as Call of Duty or even Medal of Honor. UT2 geometry tends to be blocky with most of the content being models. The Q3 engine's better handling of BSP geometry makes for more interesting and varied environments without this heavy reliance on models that appear again and again.

Gameplay-wise, it's passable so far, but I have plenty of gripes: being forced to stop while one of your squadmates yammers on is annoying, especially when the NPCs are slow to carry out their scripted manoeuvres; the constant breaking up of the action with load screens is a nuisance (though the loads are 10x quicker than HL2 to be fair); there's a crouch stance but no prone - a pretty glaring omission IMHO; and seeing a guy I've just shot in the face shoot back straight away is a little disconcerting.

I give it 5/10 so far. I'm prepared to concede it might turn into something amazing later though.

 

[mattgirv]

I disagree, I think it looks better than Medal of Honor and even Call of Duty at times. I have it on high and the models are pretty darn good.

Anyway gameplay matters, and this game is simply amazing, the only thing I get slightly annoyed about are the repetetive comments made by teammates, "Don't forget to check the bodies for smokes", etc

 

[jimbo118]

Anyone played BIA yet? Picked up the PC version today and played a bit of the start. The reviews are saying it's pretty good and not just another generic WW2 FPS. The situational view is fairly cool, but overall I haven't been impressed so far. For a start, I think the UT2 engine was a poor choice TBH. The game doesn't look as good as the movies and screens suggested, and it certainly isn't as good-looking as Call of Duty or even Medal of Honor. UT2 geometry tends to be blocky with most of the content being models. The Q3 engine's better handling of BSP geometry makes for more interesting and varied environments without this heavy reliance on models that appear again and again.

Gameplay-wise, it's passable so far, but I have plenty of gripes: being forced to stop while one of your squadmates yammers on is annoying, especially when the NPCs are slow to carry out their scripted manoeuvres; the constant breaking up of the action with load screens is a nuisance (though the loads are 10x quicker than HL2 to be fair); there's a crouch stance but no prone - a pretty glaring omission IMHO; and seeing a guy I've just shot in the face shoot back straight away is a little disconcerting.

I give it 5/10 so far. I'm prepared to concede it might turn into something amazing later though.

lots of peeps here(including me)were very disappointed with it too,do a search for the thread

 

[Jimmeh]

It's above average really. Nothing more. I loved it at first, the graphics were pretty nice for Xbox (the textures were shitty close up too, but it's alot less noticeable on a tele) but as the game went on I found myself disliking it more and more. I'd give it 7/10. It just gets a bit repetitive at times, but I do love the way the guns feel, especially the sounds. As far as I know it's better on Xbox than it is on PC, but it's nothing special either way. I haven't touched it since I completed it either.

 

[FictiousWill]

I've not played it personally, and I give it props for being on the unreal engine (damn nice engine, well coded) but after watching a friend play for an extended period, it seemed more like a game of shoot-the-red-circles, rather than a wargame. That's my only gripe really.

 

[smwScott]

Graphics wise it's ok. Better than CoD and MoH in my opinion, but certainly doesn't compete with some of the better looking games out today. The gameplay is pretty good, at least its different from your standard shooter.

My main problem with it is the squad command. I was expecting something like Full Spectrum Warrior, but its very dumbed down compared to that. Also, I've had problems with the AI. The infantry sometimes take the long way around, unnecessarily exposing themselves to fire. I've had the tank kill my whole team on two occasions when he wasn't even ordered to fire. It's definitely not the strategy game I thought it was. But it's still pretty decent. A game utilizing the full FSW squad commanding features and AI while still allowing you to control your own character would be amazing, but this certainly isn't that.

 

[PoeticRocker]

9/10 = im replaying it on hard right now and finding different flanking methods which make it even more enjoyable!

 

[EvilInside]

I find it average. Gets better once you can control the 2 squads.
Should have saved the money for SC:CT. Hehe.
BTW tried to enter Gearbox forums and my IP is banned. i have never posted there so i guess they are just as good making/controling forums as they are making games.

 

[Alan Freeman]

It would be sweet if i could get descent frame rates

 

[Dalamari]

Better textures, bigger maps, more variety, better last mission, deathmatch and TDM....

 

[Moto]

I didn't even finish it. It's just average if not a little below average. It feels like it is missing a lot of things.

 

[jimbo118]

heres an interesting bia article

http://www.pcgameworld.com/article.php/id/284/

 

[antimatter]

Extremely disappointed. I got bored after 20 min. Haven't played it since. Why didnt they use the source engine since valve and gearbox have done things together in the past?

 

[ray_MAN]

Source didn't turn out too well for Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines.

 

[Ennui]

Source didn't turn out too well for Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines.

Yeah, that was one of the main blows against it in some reviews - they didn't use much of the potential of the Source engine at all.

Isn't Brothers in Arms a larger-style game? Source is better for smaller fights and smaller games, which is why it looks so good.

 

[jimbo118]

http://www.videogamessuck.com/article143.html

another short diappointed review,funny too although hes a bit odd.lol read the comments,these guys are nuts

 

[Shakermaker]

http://www.videogamessuck.com/article143.html

another short diappointed review,funny too although hes a bit odd.lol read the comments,these guys are nuts

That site is a lot of fun. They review 95% of the games as "shit". They like Rome Total War tho:

This game will rock you so hard, your dad will have pains in his nut sack! "

 

[jimbo118]

lol,im reading their doom 3 1 now,not surprisingly it got a "fu*kin" 9.5 bitch"

 

[Venmoch]

Source didn't turn out too well for Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines.

Except that Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines was more addictive than crack so I didn't mind the bugs

Problem with Brothers in Arms is that theres a long period in the middle of boredom. It picks up a little (Defending the cathedral was fun) but it was a little monotonous for a large part. And I brought Act Of War at the same time. And I've pretty much been playing that

 

[Colin]

heres an interesting bia article

http://www.pcgameworld.com/article.php/id/284/

Interesting? All he does is prove that you need to play more than 30 minutes of a game before passing oh-so-well-thoughtout arguments out.

After thirty minutes of boring, seen this before, repetition in BIA, I felt like I’d been robbed. There was nothing innovative. There was nothing especially thrilling in either the action or tactical mode. And the salty language was nothing new. Full Spectrum Warrior did that better too.

The fact is there ISN'T any true squad combat in Brothers in Arms until AFTER Dead Man's Corner, which is easily 4 hours into the game. For someone who claims to know it all about the game, he hasn't even cracked the shell. As someone who has played the game through and through twice, and going through it a third time on Authentic, I can honestly tell you his "been there done that" attitude doesn't hold water when you're played the whole game. I played Call of Duty SP and Call of Duty UO SP before buying Brothers in Arms. IMO, there is no comparison gameplay wise once you get control of your squads and tanks. WWII is the setting, not the game.

For someone who claims that the only people who will like Brothers in Arms are pseudo-tactical gamers who transfered over from run-and-gun games, I find it odd that he totally overlooks the one button squad system that hasn't been used in any game before, WWII game or not. If he is the extreme tactical gamer he makes himself to be, you'd think this argument would be made on the side of the game, not against it. But then again, you can't expect media not to be extremely slanted either way.


Whats even funnier is the Brothers in Arms PC just got a 96% from PCGamer Magazine. So which is it? Every major gaming publication but one has given the game over 90%. Gamespot user ratings are at 8.9/10 for PC, and 9.4/10 on the Xbox.

 

[jimbo118]

pc gamer uk gave it 88 i believe

also that article colin alot of peeps would agree with,it is incredibly overrated

 

[jondy]

For someone who claims that the only people who will like Brothers in Arms are pseudo-tactical gamers who transfered over from run-and-gun games, I find it odd that he totally overlooks the one button squad system that hasn't been used in any game before, WWII game or not. If he is the extreme tactical gamer he makes himself to be, you'd think this argument would be made on the side of the game, not against it. But then again, you can't expect media not to be extremely slanted either way.

He doesn't overlook the one-button system - he says it's a poor compromise that isn't a real substitute for the more advanced squad tactics found in FSW etc.

As for slanted, whaddya want? It's a review, it's not claiming to be objective.

But I agree with him; I don't know what the fuss is all about. BiA, in stark contrast to what many reviews are saying, wasn't that great.

 

[jimbo118]

He doesn't overlook the one-button system - he says it's a poor compromise that isn't a real substitute for the more advanced squad tactics found in FSW etc.

As for slanted, whaddya want? It's a review, it's not claiming to be objective.

But I agree with him; I don't know what the fuss is all about. BiA, in stark contrast to what many reviews are saying, wasn't that great.

your avatar is quality :hmph:

 

[Zeus]

BiA is ok, highly overrated in reviews though IMO

 

[Darkknighttt]

I want this game!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! how many BIA threads are we going to have?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

[Datrix]

Atleast its better than Call Of Duty.
*me runs...FAST!*