Brothers In Arms Interview

DuvalMagic,

I don't believe I can be wrong so long as I'm holding true to my own opinions. My reputation actually took a hit as I convinced 5 people to buy this game based upon all of the media I'd looked at prior to release. 4 out of the 5 people who bought the game based upon my recommendation were disappointed with it and are now back to playing COD: United Offensive and BF1942: Forgotten Hope after each shelling out $50 a pop.

Seeing as I earned Gearbox a gross of $300, I feel that I'm warranted the priviledge to speak about BiA based upon my experiences with the game.

You can't deny that some of the media released was blatant false advertising. Here's some prime examples:

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2004/screen0/920312_20040413_screen002.jpg

(The game never had this level of graphical detail and realism, even with details cranked on a Radeon 9800)

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2004/screen0/920237_20040413_screen004.jpg

(air strike? screenshot gives the impression your squad is moving into the outskirts of a town a half mile away, when the player was actually boxed in to a small zone without being able to reach what's pictured in the distance)

http://pcmedia.gamespy.com/pc/image/article/551/551633/brothers-in-arms-20040927092829593.jpg

(Detailed raindrops? Jeep? flowers?) This scene has a good 2x the texture detail of the actual game, even with ingame settings cranked to max)

This is just from a visual standpoint. Granted, some of the visuals were fantastic, such as the explosions as well as the water, but PC gamers were mislead by many of the screenshots, like the above leading us into thinking we'd receive extra visual quality over the x-box, and that wasn't the case at all aside from being able to run it in higher resolutions.

Had I more time, I would have praised what I did enjoy about the game - such as commanding the tank, the top-notch sound effects, and otherwise. But I, and the people I recommended the game felt the price of admission was way too high for what was actually served on the plate.

Sure, BiA did best other titles in the WWII genre in some areas, but it also failed to build on top of the foundation layed by other successful fps's in the past. No prone, no peeking or aiming around corners, etc. In my opinion, restrictions like that in 2005 aren't acceptable for games of this type, which are supposed to rely on tactfulness and strategy.

If you can ignore the lack of paragraphs, this review covered some of my feelings about the BiA:

http://www.gamershell.com/pc/brothers_in_arms/review.html

It's amazing to hear Antal talk about the game like it's the second coming of Christ, when in reality.. this is just as much a corridor shooter as any other title, Call of duty was even better felt and more open-ended in this respect. You can't even jump over small objects, meanwhile - you see the germans slide over rock walls and embankments. Your own men even climb over things that you can't.

All of the battles in the game are staged and cordoned off. The Germans run out in the same positions every time, same number of guys (3-8), or in most cases, you just reach an area with Germans already waiting for you.. and you have only a few pre-determined paths you can use to go kill them.

I thought I'd be able to call in air strikes on certain positions throughout the game, run across a field into an adjacent town with my men, etc - nope. Several of the screenshots and videos included stuff that wasn't even in the game, so in combination with all of ridiculous hype concerning BiA, they also used false advertising to make it seem as though the environment was much less restrictive and open than it actually was. Oh, and what about the screenshots including jeeps and rain streaks? Not even in the game.

One of the supposed highlights of the game was the attachment the gamer would feel towards each of the characters. There was really no fleshing out of any of the characters at all, without much, if any background story on each of the members of your squad. If one of your men would die, you can just spawn him back in... or find that during the next level, he's "mysteriously" alive and in your squad again. Hell, I even found Germans in a few parts of the game that had the SAME face textures as some of my own squad. That's unforgiveable.

The detail in the character faces is poor, the lip/synch animation is terrible, so the soldiers aren't even believable to begin with. I remember that demonstration video where Randy Pitchford was like "Ohh.. look at the eyes, it's eerie... they're so reaaal. Look at his eyes." Granted , the eyes looked decent, but who cares when the faces look like playdough, suffering from low res textures which were obviously just a direct port from the xbox, which as we all know is optimized for 640x480 tv viewing.

This game was a huge waste of money. You only get a few maps in multiplayer, which should've been one of the main selling points.

They got so much right, and yet so much wrong with this title. I'm writing off all future Gearbox games until I get to play demos beforehand. Never again.

Upcoming demo....

Riiiiiiiiiiight. I'll believe it when I see it.

Hill 31 has an oompa-loompa band.