Brothers In Arms

Axyon said:
I can see why they'd want to do it, but yeah, it is pretty annoying.

I agree, altho invincible teammates would have been even worse. I am a the-glass-is-half-full kinda guy ;)



Looking at the vid mentioned above now. I saw that one before, altho not in this big resolution. Still worth the download tho, nice!
 
yeah but the emotional aspect this game is bangin on about is now null as soldiers are just gona die at scripted points unless they include a load of fictional guys who die unscripted
 
How many good, realistic WW2 FPS are there right now? I can't think of a single one.
 
jimbo118 said:
yeah but the emotional aspect this game is bangin on about is now null as soldiers are just gona die at scripted points unless they include a load of fictional guys who die unscripted

That's like saying a movie or book has zero emotional power because the main characters don't die randomly and instantly.
 
KagePrototype said:
That's like saying a movie or book has zero emotional power because the main characters don't die randomly and instantly.

yeah i see your point but i never compared it to a movie or book,i mean whats the point of 'caring' for these guys if they are just gona die at some preset point that you(the gamer!) have no influence,thats the diff between your point
 
jimbo118 said:
yeah i see your point but i never compared it to a movie or book,i mean whats the point of 'caring' for these guys if they are just gona die at some preset point that you(the gamer!) have no influence,thats the diff between your point

Well, I'm sure it's still possible to care about other characters, just like in movies or books, or indeed other games. :) That was my point. Just look at the reaction Aerith's death in FF7 got, for example.
 
yeah i know what you mean.like in mgs too etc,but the developers were constantly talkin about how'your actions have an outcome on whether your men survive'blablabla, but now this wont happen,i guess i just thought it wouldnt be so linear story wise
 
jimbo118 said:
yeah i know what you mean.like in mgs too etc,but the developers were constantly talkin about how'your actions have an outcome on whether your men survive'blablabla, but now this wont happen,i guess i just thought it wouldnt be so linear story wise

They probably just meant that, if you're a crap leader, you're gonna get all your men wounded and thus "dead". So your men rely on you to be an effective leader. :) I doubt it would be possible to have a game "based on a true story", and have all of the characters able to die at any point during the game. :)
 
KagePrototype said:
They probably just meant that, if you're a crap leader, you're gonna get all your men wounded and thus "dead". So your men rely on you to be an effective leader. :) I doubt it would be possible to have a game "based on a true story", and have all of the characters able to die at any point during the game. :)

lol yeah i know,but i woulda liked more leeway in terms of this as like you said in a film,book,etc you have no say in terms of anything,its just 'this is it',whereas in games there should be more freedom sorta like how stalker says it'll be.
 
7!!!!!!!!!

RARGH!!! My relief is almost palpable.

I bet for a sick joke they bump the number back up too 400 or something lol.
 
After playing Republic Commando, my expectations for this game have gone down a lot. Now i'm just expecting a nice looking average console shooter, with not very much depth to the squad commanding.
 
5 lol,this is great,they may announce the game has been finished by mondat woot,what will happen then?sent off for production or to be proof tested?
 
I reckon its gonna be sent off for RC testing. Just remember that they are releasing on xbox and PS2 and they both have extremly rigirous testing.

Maybe the PC version will be released before the console verstions.
 
^Ben said:
I reckon its gonna be sent off for RC testing. Just remember that they are releasing on xbox and PS2 and they both have extremly rigirous testing.

Maybe the PC version will be released before the console verstions.
so we can get the less rigorously tested piece of shit? no thank you, i'd rather not have to patch the game three times in the first day to get it to work properly, let them take their time, though a demo would be nice
 
Brothers in Arms work items until done: 26

AN SHEIZER!
 
36 :/

Yeah, just look at hl2. I wish they had kept it longer instead of releasing that piece of crap.
 
Yeah, this just proves the counter is not really acurate.
 
Adrien C said:
Yeah, this just proves the counter is not really acurate.

It IS accurate, its on the official Gearbox site and its updated by their community manager.

Dev response:
There are, however, new builds of the game pretty much every day. Sometimes something goes in that breaks lots of things and there's a flurry of bugs. Most of the time they all get closed the very next day. So don't get too down about it
 
c'om if we could wait for HL2 we can wait for every other game lol
 
yeah, I'll just play WoW until then. It's my new addicition anyway.
 
...This counter-thing is so retarded.
Why did they HAVE to start it?
Don't they realize how many emotionally unstable people are out there?
Someone could kill themselves if they keep going up and down with numbers.
 
they can take as long as they want making the game so long as they give us a demo
 
I hope people aren't just sitting in front of there computer hitting the refresh botton every second just to see if it went up or down. :(
 
Alan Freeman said:
I hope people aren't just sitting in front of there computer hitting the refresh botton every second just to see if it went up or down. :(
Why not? It's just like the stock market, only less it at stake, or maybe not if sanity is an issue with some of these people
 
Back
Top