Brothers in Arms

**ICantSpellDawg** · 05-19-2005, 05:39

i really like this game so far

when people start modding for it it is going to be amazing

the multiplayer is a bit simple, but the concept is new

**econ21** · 05-19-2005, 09:42

I was really keen on this game before it came out as I like the idea of a shooter with some historical accuracy, but then it got awful reviews among people on the internet whose taste is likely to coincide with mine. Two problems I heard were (a) aiming was terribly inaccurate; (b) gameplay got repetitive - suppress, flank, assault and then repeat. How do you find these aspects?

**Fragony** · 05-19-2005, 09:50

It heard the multiplayer sucks, the guns are supposedly very inaccurate and weak so everyone rushes in for a melee attack.

**Viking** · 05-19-2005, 13:46

The aiming are inaccurate yes, but it makes the game more fun.(takes longer time to kill the enemy; the missions are not done in 1,2,3 sec)

As of flanking, I don`t really bother and snipe `em from a distance, or send my team to kill them.

Don`t know anything about MP.

**ICantSpellDawg** · 05-19-2005, 15:26

im telling you

it freaking gnarly

gamespot even re-reviewed it with a 9.0

it is a billion times better than call of duty and the multiplayer is a novel approach to fun tactical gaming

chess is "boring" too, but tons of people play it all the time

as mods and expansions come out, this game will be amazing

i thought the same things, but when i played the demo, i was pleasantly suprised that general public reviews can be wrong

remember, this is the same "general public" that loves action flicks and shiny objects

plus it is around 29 bucks

**Kraxis** · 05-19-2005, 15:29

Screenshots? Anything?

**ICantSpellDawg** · 05-19-2005, 15:32

www.gamespot.com

www.brothersinarmsgame.com

**Kraxis** · 05-19-2005, 15:47

Hmm... Now I'm suddenly not as impressed anymore.

If it is historical correctness they are gunning for it is surprising how they label the Sherman as a good way of killing enemy tanks, and in general downplay the German weapons while upplaying the American ones.
Btw, where are the German machineguns or the Panzershreck?

Also, here we have another game that hasn't had the guts to let the player actually play as a German soldier.

**ICantSpellDawg** · 05-19-2005, 22:26

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Hmm... Now I'm suddenly not as impressed anymore.

If it is historical correctness they are gunning for it is surprising how they label the Sherman as a good way of killing enemy tanks, and in general downplay the German weapons while upplaying the American ones.
Btw, where are the German machineguns or the Panzershreck?

Also, here we have another game that hasn't had the guts to let the player actually play as a German soldier.

you can play as a "german" squad leader in multiplayer with a crew of 6 behind you

**Kraxis** · 05-20-2005, 02:47

Hardly impressive... You can play Germans in MP in many games, but you can surprisingly only play Germans in SP in RTS games and other games that is not on the 'personal' level.

The industry is really missing out on it. I mean, Call of Duty would have been perfect for it, impossible odds and delaying actions, it would have been great. And this would have been great too. I wonder what is keeping them back. Can't be the politics or ethics of being the 'evil' Germans as you can already play them in other types of games.

**econ21** · 05-20-2005, 09:54

Originally Posted by Kraxis

I wonder what is keeping them back. Can't be the politics or ethics of being the 'evil' Germans as you can already play them in other types of games.

Well, other games let you command counters of German units in hex-based wargame or tiny toy soliders in a Blitzkrieg type RTS. It's kind of impersonal. But to play as a WW2 German in a shooter, killing young American, Russian or British boys when you can see the whites of their eyes... That's a little different. I don't think it is anything about ethics per se - shooters already let you play serial killers, vampires etc. But it may be marketing - I am not sure it would go down well with American kids and their moralistic protectors. It would give me pause for thought, although I would be interested if it was a reasonably authentic, atmospheric shooter like Vietcong.

**Viking** · 05-20-2005, 20:17

But playing as the germans would be a bit weird, since you`re losing the war.

How would that be put into gameplay? Defeat after defeat?

**Kraxis** · 05-20-2005, 23:16

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

Well, other games let you command counters of German units in hex-based wargame or tiny toy soliders in a Blitzkrieg type RTS. It's kind of impersonal. But to play as a WW2 German in a shooter, killing young American, Russian or British boys when you can see the whites of their eyes... That's a little different. I don't think it is anything about ethics per se - shooters already let you play serial killers, vampires etc. But it may be marketing - I am not sure it would go down well with American kids and their moralistic protectors. It would give me pause for thought, although I would be interested if it was a reasonably authentic, atmospheric shooter like Vietcong.

That's the point... You can actually play as Germans in MP, 'killing' actual people. That has got to be worse, damn you can even play with bots to make a real killingground. And you can play the baddies or non-good guys (though all that good guy bad guy can be debated endlessly) in many an FPS. I just think that the developers haven't got the guts.

I think the losing battles are very much indeed good cases for FPS games, you have to perform delaying actions, assassinations (such as that landing in England to kill Churchill), take part in counter-offensives (Ardennes anyone?), defend against impossible odds (Monte Cassino for instance or Selöw Heights) or even play during Operation Zitadelle. Don't tell me that it wouldn't be great. All those types of battles have already been tried and with good effect in MoH and CoD.
There are plenty of German victories despite a losing war, so you wouldn't have to be playing losing battles.
Also a losing battle would just make a different experience of FPS. Just like a warmovie where the 'good' guys eventually all die or fail (which in general are incredibly good movies).

Being a non-American and non-German I'm getting tired of moving down the same enemy like I'm some sort of superhuman being, it is simply getting repitative. I like it balanced, perhaps I'm trying to make up for it by actually preferring to play Germans in BF 1942 or VC in BF Vietnam, since I can't play them otherwise.

I think the Close Combat games were excellent games, and there you got real personal with the enemy, hearing them scream and flee in terror at the sight of their comrades getting toasted with a flamethrower. They were rather successful if I'm not mistaken.

So as you can see I find no rational point in no German poin of view in FPS SP games. I honestly thought that there would be a German campaign in Call of Duty, as the last 'unknown' campaign (which turned out to merely be one extra mission for each of the normal campaigns).

For all I care the developers could make it so that the German missions were missions of mercy. Assassination of a British bombercommander who plans bomb missions against German populationcenters for the sole sake of killing civilians (and as we know that is not impossible to believe, as there actually were a good number of them), or defending a village against a penal brigade (whom wouldn't be too nice towards the civilians as their own lives would soon end too). And if it really is that bad, then let the missions actually fail. Let the commander escape to bomb again and let the village get torched before it can be saved.