Brothers in Arms

[therockbox]

Rent it then?

[apsham]

It doesn't appeal to me, period. I'd rather spend my time playing something that I like, I don't own games just to play them once you know. Besides, any rental store is about, one hour drive away.

[therockbox]

Again, how could I have known that?

I'd rather spend my time playing something that I like, I don't own games just to play them once you know

[apsham]

I know it's genre, I know how the gameplays, I know how the makers of the game want to portray the game.

- The genre, while good, has been OVERDONE. I already own 5 or more war games.

- I've played far too many first person shooters, and I don't like using tactical strategy.

- I like war and history, but the other two facts outweigh it.

And for the love of God, I just mentioned that I was an hour away from a rental store, hence the question you asked "Rent it then" was replied to WITH THE ANSWER.

[Timmoru Suzuki]

Can you two give it a rest now?

As for the game, I like it, but it's not an awesome game. I prefer it just to something like MOH, but there are a few things that drag it down, most noteable is the seemingly lack of any replay value (then again, I find most war games have this problem, they cant break down as many boundaries due to thier very nature as something like counterstrike or Halo). Also, whilst I'm not going to moan about the difficulty, it is a little too unforgiving at times, and this may but off some people, and it certainly gets rid of any motivation to have a 'quick go' on the game (something counterstike seems made for). I feel a slightly more defined learing curve would be in order.

One thing that has impressed me is how much historical research went into the game. After each mission, you unlock a piece of the research (the problem here being that is different for each difficulty setting, meaning 9/10 people wont get the most interesting documents, as they wont play the game 4 times (once per difficulty level) to get everything, either due to it getting repetitive, or simply because they wont be able too beacuse of the difficulty of the game). In any event, these pieces of information I found very interesting, and whilst not adding to gameplay, do make it a more rounded entertainment package. These items vary from things like maps and arial photo's, to Eisenhowers orders from that day, to animatics and photos of the development teams trip to Normandy to research the settings for the levels. These are very good, and interesting,but have the aforementioend problems. The DVD that is included in the liminted edition tin (also including postcards with some such pictures and historical documents, and a mock diary) also shows just how much trouble they went to to make this the most realistic WWII game made in terms of scenery, missions, costumes and weapons.

I feel some other game mode would have helped. I cant comment on multi-player, as I havent tried it, but nearly everyone I have heard talk about multiplayer say its AWESOME.

[Toe]

I think that this game is the best FPS game on the XBOX right now.

[Guest Grapehead]

That was the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen, mainly because all you two did was repeat what you said over and over, while completely ignoring something. TRB, you think that cover is half-assed, why don't you whip out a pen and paper and give us something to look at, I'm sure your best work wouldn't even look good enough to consider shit compared to that 'half-ass cover.' Secondly, the North American cover is leaps and bounds better, IMO, it actually consists of a background for one.

Anyways, since this topic really isn't about MGS, I'd like to slap buddy above me here for calling BiA the best FPS on the Xbox... because I hate nothing more than someone calling a game the best of it's genre, there's too many games in a genre with very contrasting features to define one as 'the best' so it should never be attempted.

[Timmoru Suzuki]

I kind of agree with the guy above. In some genre's, there arent that many games, and so one game could be defined as the best. However, I agree that in a genre like the FPS genre, there are many games with lots of contrasting features, and I agree that to try and define one as the best is something not to be attempted (backing this up, take the five XBox shooters I own - Halo/Halo 2, Counter-Strike, Unreal Championship and BiA, they are all very different games, with contrasting features, idea's and style of gameplay (e.g a strategy guarenteed victory on say Unreal Championship will get you killed instantly on BiA, hence the different tactics and ways of working, and this means the different games become better suited for what you feel like playing at the time, and different preferences of people come into play - some people that love a very acrade style, fast and frantic shooter may instantly dismiss a tactical shooter for its thinking, more methodical approach and are better in some ways then the others. Thus, backign up the point that there are too may games of different kinds to clearly define one as the best. If someone prefers a more drawn out tactical shooter, he may well think BiA is the best shooter on XBox, and hate others like Unreal Championship, but the reverse could be true, because the games are so different and appeal to different preferences and needs of different gamers ). Trying to define one as the best shouldn't be attempted. I could say that I find Counter-Strike the slightly more enjoyable, but that doesn't make it the best). It do think however breaking down into sub-genre's, and defining a game as the best of its sub-genre could work (again, its picking from a more limited field, making comparison easier) And even then, I wouldnt say Brothers in Arms was the best WWII game/Best Tactical shooter.

Note - Sorry if that's not written in a great way. I kept going off on a tangent in places, and I had to stop or I would have continued to do so for a while there.

Edited March 28, 2005 by timmayy

[Guest Pirate Chasin' Booty]

I agree with AS, if something looks shit, you don't buy it, simple as. If your in the market for a frozen meal and it looks like a frozen turd, is it worth trying? it might be the tastiest meal ever, but why give it a chance when it looks about as appealing as a fat lady in spandex?

If covers didn't matter, they wouldn't have them.

[therockbox]

That was the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen, mainly because all you two did was repeat what you said over and over, while completely ignoring something. TRB, you think that cover is half-assed, why don't you whip out a pen and paper and give us something to look at, I'm sure your best work wouldn't even look good enough to consider shit compared to that 'half-ass cover.' Secondly, the North American cover is leaps and bounds better, IMO, it actually consists of a background for one.

←

[Guest Grapehead]

Not going to bother, would just be a ridiculous argument, take my comments however you wish, I'm not getting drawn into that.

I left the copy of BiA that I rented with my friend, he said the single player mode was awesome, but then again this is a guy that could play Fuzion Frenzy and have the time of his life I'm sure.