Most tactical games feature military settings, and you can usual tell them at a glace by their “colon” names. Take Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30, for instance — it’s an excellent game with way too much name. Somber and serious, it’s set in World War II and offers loads tactical, claustrophobic action. Its single-player, crafted with skill by the fine people at Gearbox Software and with definite nods to the Medal of Honor franchise, is significantly more elaborate than most first-person shooters.
Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30 adds a bit of a twist to the action, implementing a strong squad-based element. You have to command your soldiers from cover to cover, trying to flank and outwit enemy forces. You can run and gun as you would in any shooter, but catching a burst of machinegun fire is deadly in this game. Instead you must use the environment and clever maneuvering to outwit your foes.
The enemy soldiers in Brothers in Arms take cover and react to suppression fire (which is one of the tactical options available to players), but every level is designed to give you an obvious way to take out an entrenched enemy. There’s always one or two clear path to sneak up and strike a pack of Germans from the side while a few of your other buddies keep them busy with a rain of inaccurate lead. These solutions are only available in very specific instances, leading to the game’s puzzle-like feel.
And despite being a shooter set in World War II, the game feels somewhat lite on the action. Combat is usually limited to a few dozen soldiers at a time, their positions marked on your HUD as soon as you make contact. This slows down the battles to an approachable pace and rackets up the tension. Scripted events are sprinkled to highlight important story eccentric evens, and you are funneled through critical choke points, but the game at least gives you multiple solutions to victory.
The difficulty is notched up a bit here, giving way to occasional frustration as you take a dirt nap halfway through a level. You can’t save, but reasonably positioned checkpoints will beam you back fairly close to your last conflict. If any of your squad-mates die, they miraculously come back in the next mission – odd, but not unforgivable. Turning them into anonymous GI Joes would have fixed this issue, but the truth is that giving them identifiable personalities and backstories adds a lot more to the story. Plus the title wouldn’t make much sense otherwise.
Asides from such minor breaks from reality, Brothers in Arms is a fairly solid military sim. By implementing strategic depth to its squad-based gunfights, the game manages to ratchet up the sort of tension that few shooters have these days.
System Requirements: Pentium III 1 GHz, 512 MB RAM, 5 GB HDD, WinXP
Tags: Free Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30 Download ISO PC Game Review
Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30 is a first-person shootervideo game developed by Gearbox Software and published by Ubisoft for PlayStation 2, Xbox, Microsoft Windows and OS X. It is the first game in the Brothers in Arms series. The game takes place during World War II and focuses on tactics. It was ported to the Wii in 2008, as part of the Brothers in Arms: Double Time compilation.
Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30 was also used to recreate scenarios in a 2005 History Channel special, also titled Brothers in Arms.
Gameplay[edit]
In most levels of Brothers in Arms, the player is in command of one or two separate 1-3 man teams, with the exception of several sections in which the player is not in command of any unit. There are two types of teams, which are automatically provided before each mission:
Brother In Arms Road To Hill 30 Legenda Of Tomorrow
Additionally, some levels provide the player with a tank in lieu of a team, providing players with heavy firepower and mobile cover. The player can also man the pintle-mounted M1919 Browning machine gun on the tank for additional suppression.
Brothers in Arms is notable for its intuitive command system. Teams and tanks can be ordered to move, lay suppressive fire, rally, find cover, and charge the enemy. The game stresses at multiple points the effectiveness of fire and maneuver tactics, known as the Four Fs actually used by the military during World War II, expressed in the game tutorial as 'Find, Fix, Flank, Finish' describing the steps in suppressing and flanking an enemy.
The focus on team command rather than individual marksmanship is emphasized by providing the player with inaccurate aim. Instead of having almost perfect accuracy with weapons in games like Call of Duty and Medal of Honor, Brothers in Arms models weapons with erratic accuracy, and enemy fire can interfere with a player's aim to simulate the effects of suppressive fire. The relative lack of accuracy is designed to simulate the difficulty in hitting targets in a combat situation and to force the player to use team members to engage enemy units and provide better tactical opportunities.
Plot[edit]
Brothers in Arms is based on the true story of the 502nd Parachute Infantry Regiment (PIR) of the famed 101st Airborne Division who were dropped behind German lines on D-Day. The game is based on the historical Mission Albany, in which the player has to complete missions based on real actions of the 101st in Normandy.
The game starts with the player, Sergeant Matthew 'Matt' Baker of the 502nd Infantry Regiment at the climax of the Battle of Bloody Gulch. Outnumbered and outgunned, the Paratroopers make a desperate stand as Leggett, the squad's radioman makes a frantic request for tank support. Unable to raise support or reinforcements, the situation for the Paratroopers only gets worse when a Panzer IV appears and fires at them, knocking Baker down again. An unhinged Leggett is seen firing an M1911 pistol at the tank, only to be torn apart by another shell. Platoon Sergeant 'Mac' is seen trying to resuscitate Baker before Baker fades into unconsciousness.
The game then snaps back to the initial jump off, taking place hours before the Normandy Landings. Baker, along with the rest of the squad is preparing to disembark from the C-47, when the plane is hit by anti-aircraft fire. Baker is thrown from the plane, although losing his kit in the drop he manages to land safely. Managing to find Mac, the pair search for the others, eventually finding Leggett and superior Lt. Col. Cole. Despite being way off course, the group led by Mac destroy several Flak 38 anti-aircraft guns using satchel explosives. By morning, more of the squad has managed to find one another, including BAR gunner Corporal Joseph 'Red' Hartsock, who Mac delegates to Baker to clear an important road leading to Utah Beach. After fighting their way through several German soldiers, as well as a mortar team, Baker and Hartsock link up with Allen and Garnett, two other members of their squad. Using a Browning .30 caliber machine gun, the four troops defend against a counterattack from the beach and succeed in securing Exit 4, a way off Utah beach, for the 4th Infantry Division.
With the beachhead secure, Baker, with Hartsock assisting is tasked to clear out 'Objective XYZ,' which turns out to be a makeshift German barracks housing scores of Germans. Aided by the element of surprise, the two, with the help of Allen and Garnett, take and destroy the barracks structure with a Bazooka and eliminate the numerically-superior German troops there. With no hindrance to their advance, the 502nd are now able to press on to securing Foucarville, still being contested by the Germans and the Paratroopers. Alongside Hartsock, Allen and Garnett, Baker engages a larger force of German soldiers and also manages to destroy several mortar positions and a tank before once again linking up with Mac. At the end of the mission, Mac confesses to Baker that he assumed he was too shy to handle being squad leader (a fact Baker still isn't comfortable in handling) but his doubts have been now made unfound because of his abilities to fight effectively.
The next mission has Baker and his team destroying poles erected in clear fields so that the Glider Infantry can land safely in the area. The task is complicated however because the Germans have plenty of reinforcements, and enough MG42 gun emplacements to defend the fields effectively. Nevertheless, Baker succeeds and the gliders land with ease. The 502nd is then tasked with clearing the town of Vierville on D-Day+1, with assistance from an M5 Stuart light tank whose commander happens to be Baker's best friend, Sergeant George Risner. Baker's squad, as well as heavy fire support from Risner's tank, manage to clear the town, as well as repel an armored counterattack before embarking on the tank to secure a vital crossroad near Saint-Côme-du-Mont in the next mission. Although successful in breaking through the heavy German defenses, Risner's tank is ambushed and immobilized by a Panzerfaust. Risner makes a heroic last stand to ensure Baker survives, although it costs him his life.
On D-Day+2, still dealing with the death of his best friend, Baker and the regrouped 502nd assault Saint-Côme-du-Mont. Mac instructs Baker to first clear out a German machine gun nest which has been making transit in the area risky for the troops. When Baker and squad succeed in doing so, Saint-Côme-du-Mont is effectively opened to the Americans. However, taking the town proves to be challenging as the Fallschirmjäger, the elite German paratroopers, are defending the town with armor support. Despite having the odds against them, the 502nd succeed in capturing the town. The next day, Baker's squad is ordered to secure a barn, with an M4A1 Sherman medium tank in support. The relatively easy task is completed, but not before Leggett can be heard shouting for Baker, who is surrounded by the dead bodies of Allen and Garnett. Most of the squad express their anger at Leggett, who is seen alone and inconsolable at what has occurred. Baker's team fights through the remaining stragglers from Vierville including StuG IV assault guns to destroy a bridge that could be used to transport German armor towards the beaches. With a Sherman tank in support, Baker wrestles control of the bridge from the Germans and destroys it.
Carentan, the crossroad town linking Utah and Omaha beaches is the next designated target for the 502nd. On D-Day+4, Baker links up with Cole to secure a causeway leading to Carentan and take it from the Germans. Stuka bombers, however, attack the causeway, knocking Baker unconscious for a day and killing one of his men. The next day, with a recovered Baker, Lt. Col. Cole leads an attack on a heavily defended German farmhouse, using smoke barrages to conceal themselves from the numerous machine gun emplacements. The charge is successful, Mac going so far as to congratulate Baker for a fine execution of command under pressing circumstances. Two hours pass after the charge, and the men of the 502nd are weary and exhausted. Hopes to earn rest are soon dashed, as the farmhouse comes under attack by German forces. To make matters worse, a detachment of troops has been pinned down by the enemy advance, meaning defending the farmhouse for those that remain will be even harder whilst Baker is sent with Hartsock, Obrieski and Zanovich to the rescue of Lt. Combs. Returning with Combs, Baker and his team takes up defensive positions around the farmhouse as swarms of German infantry attack. The attack is heavy, but Baker and the rest of the 502nd manage to repel the attack.
The next day, D-Day+6, Baker and the 502nd push into Carentan, destroying German armor and making steady progress. The town, with much difficulty, is liberated, but Baker's squad loses more men and barely holds the town when the Germans attempt to retake it with tank support. After this, the 101st Airborne Division moves slightly out of Carentan before being struck by a massive German counterattack. Baker's men fight their way through German armor and infantry as they make their way to the main defensive positions. Upon arriving, however, Baker is quickly knocked unconscious twice in the fierce action; when he awakes, Mac sends him off the line alone to find nearby American armored reinforcements from the 2nd Armored Division. Encountering some Germans, Baker slowly finds his way past them before discovering the armored support and leading them into the battle, driving off the German attackers and saving the remaining paratroopers.
The exhausted paratroopers are sent back to Carentan, where Mac informs them that they have performed excellently and that they had sent a message to Hitler that 'his days are numbered.' Mac also announces Hartsock's promotion to Sergeant, appointing him in command of another squad, and that a 'Colonel Marshall' is waiting to interview them on their experiences. Mac, however, then privately tells Baker that 'this isn't over' and welcomes him to 'the end of the beginning' as Carentan suddenly comes under bombardment, and the squad charges once again into action with Baker at the lead.
The sequel Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood is also based on the last missions of the 101st in Normandy, such as the link up with 82nd Airborne Division and capture of Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte (which historically did not involve the 101st Airborne as a whole, but some members volunteered to assist the heavily undermanned 82nd). In Earned in Blood, however, the main character is the now-Sergeant Joseph 'Red' Hartsock, Baker's close companion in Road to Hill 30.
Characters[edit]
Baker's squad consists of Corporal Joe 'Red' Hartsock, Cpl. Sam Corrion, Private First Class Jack Courtland, Pfc. Stephan 'Obi' Obrieski, Private Larry Allen, Pvt. Johnny Rivas, Pvt. Michael Desola, Pvt. David Muzza, Pfc. Thomas 'Zano' Zanovich, Pvt. Michael Garnett and Pvt. Dale 'Kid' McCreary. The Radioman is Pfc. Kevin Benjamin 'Legs' Leggett. The squad is one of three under Platoon Sgt. Greg 'Mac' Hassay. 'Mac' served under Sgt. Baker's father, whom he had much respect for, in the First World War and has promised to himself to make Sgt. Baker into a good soldier.
Other characters include Sgt. Baker's best friend, tank commander Sgt. George Risner, with whom he spent his childhood. He commands a M5 Light Tank. George follows Sgt. Baker into a small French town outside Saint-Côme-du-Mont where his tank is hit by a Panzerfaust. He soon dies while firing back at the Germans with Baker's M1911 pistol. Real-life personalities such as Lieutenant Colonel Robert G. Cole, awarded the Medal of Honor for leading a charge against a German position outside Carentan early on June 11, 1944, also appears, as does Col. S.L.A. Marshall, a famed military historian. Furthermore, Lt. Col. Patrick Cassidy, commander of the 1st Battalion, 502nd Parachute Infantry Regiment, and Col. Howard R. Johnson, commander of the 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment, are also found in the series in minor roles. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force was slated to make an appearance interacting with the characters in an introduction sequence named 'Nine Days Earlier' but this was cut out of the game.[1]
Later established in the game series as a 'character' is Baker's M1911 pistol. Given to him as a gift from his late father, Baker, never comfortable with it, had given it off to Risner before D-Day, and, upon Risner's death, it was retrieved and used by Allen and Garnett, who were both killed afterward. The pistol then passed into Leggett's hands, and it is this pistol which he is seen firing at Bloody Gulch before being blown apart by a German tank. As such, all of those who touched or used the pistol were killed, except for Baker himself—a fact that the men realize and turn into a legend. The pistol is later carried regularly by Baker, who, angry at the myth and conflict created around it, throws it away in front of the men during Operation Market Garden.
Development[edit]
Brothers in Arms uses a modified version of the Unreal Engine 2.0 with various effects such as motion blur, colored and lighting, anisotropic filtering, rag-doll physics, realistic ballistics, surround sound and dampening.[2][3] The story behind Brothers in Arms was based on the missions that were conducted by the 502nd Parachute Infantry Regiment, of the famed 101st Airborne Division, behind enemy lines during D-Day. Randy Pitchford, the developer of the game, described it as 'the best game [he's] ever worked on.'[4] He and his development team tried to recreate the actual look of 1944 Normandy and its buildings, landmarks, streets and battlefields. They also researched about the real soldiers who fought there, the historical reconnaissance photographs, and operations and battles such as Operation XYZ, Utah Beach and Purple Heart Lane. Their research also included interviewing various veterans and shooting the actual weapons from the game's timeline.[5]
Retired Colonel of the US Army John Antal was the consultant of the development team in creating the game's innovative tactical gameplay.[4] He was tasked in making sure that the action and the commands were accurate and authentic as possible, and he taught the development team both in the classroom and the field about real-combat decision making and firefights. The development team also researched and analyzed other tactical and strategy shooters in order to create their own unique gameplay in Brothers in Arms. They designed the characters to behave like real trained soldiers that were fully capable of engaging the enemy, covering each other, and getting good firing positions to engage from. Pitchford also described the development of the game as 'expensive and time consuming', and the process in making the game took several prototypes and attempts that cost them time, resources and ideas.[4] These attempts were made in order to make the tactical combat as fun and engaging as possible, without making it look like other standard shooters in the market. Pitchford also had a problem in making the story due to the fact that World War II shooters were as 'scripted as a Disneyland ride and not as interactive' in the current video game industry.[4] So the development team made sure that the story was not as cliched and scripted as other World War II stories, and make the game as dynamic and plausible with players actually caring for their character's lives and the combat they're into. The game was released on March 15, 2005 for Xbox, PS2 and PC. Ubisoft Shanghai assisted in porting and releasing the game for the PS2.[4]Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30 was Gearbox Software's first independently owned game, and Pitchford made sure to protect its license from other publishers who want to buy it. Pitchford also gave credit to Ubisoft in taking the risk, giving them freedom to develop the game as their own and helping them in its marketing.[6]
Reception[edit]
Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30 was a commercial success, selling 1.7 million copies by the end of March 2005.[35]Brothers in Arms' computer release received a 'Silver' sales award from the Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers Association (ELSPA),[36] indicating sales of at least 100,000 copies in the United Kingdom.[37]
Monotype garamond std bold free. Garamond Bold Font www.ffonts.net - free fonts download - free fonts online. Oct 24, 2011 Download Garamond-Bold font free for Windows and Mac. We have a huge collection of around 72,000 TrueType and OpenType free fonts, checkout more on FontPalace.com. Download Garamond-Bold font free! - Fontpalace.com offering 50000's of FREE fonts to download to help the millions of designers across the globe expressing their creativity with much. Download free Garamond Bold font, GARAMOND.TTF Garamond Bold Monotype - Garamond Bold.
Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30 received 'generally favorable' reviews, according to review aggregatorMetacritic.[7][8][9]
Philip Morton of Thunderbolt gave the game a perfect 10/10 rating and called it as 'exactly what the genre needed.' He praised the gameplay that he described as 'honed to near-perfection.'[5]
However, the game's repetitive gameplay have also garnered negative feedback from other critics. Maxim gave the PS2 and Xbox versions a score of 8/10 and stated that 'Gamers with short attention spans will likely find all the squad management tedious, but we think it adds a much-needed dimension to a very stale genre.'[38]
Detroit Free Press gave the Xbox version 3 out of 4 stars, saying that it 'could have been a four-star game, were it not for a couple of things that don't work well. You can press a button to give you an overhead view during missions. But instead of helping to advance the plot, the swirling, zooming view left me dizzy. And the enemy intelligence is set pretty low, meaning they don't pursue you with much cunning.'[33]
The Sydney Morning Herald on the other hand, which also gave the game 4 out of 5 stars, praised the AI which they described as intelligent, but also criticized the redundant gameplay saying that 'most encounters are overcome using the same method: laying suppressing fire and flanking.'[34]
Legacy[edit]
Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30 is considered by many to be one of the best World War II video games and tactical shooters today.[5][39] Gaming sites and critics praised the innovation in gameplay that Brothers in Arms brought into the World War II video game genre, which was already becoming stale and unpopular at that time. During its release, GameSpot called it 'one of the best World War II gaming experiences to date.'[40]Gamerant ranked it as #7 in its '9 Best World War II Video Games' list, stating that 'whereas most World War II shooters tend to focus on mindless action, Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30 is all about smart strategy and tactics, and that it 'also has a greater focus on character development than other games of its ilk, resulting in one of the more emotionally mature World War II video game narratives available for gamers to experience.'[41]Watchmojo also listed it as #6 in its 'Top 10: World War II Video Games' list, stating that 'other games had you command troops, this game had you lead them. Not only making the shots but calling them too made for a game that had incredible emotional depth.[42]
As a historical game, Philip Morton of Thunderbolt praised the game for more accurately and realistically capturing the time period than other games before it.[5] He stated that other games in the genre, such as Call of Duty and Medal of Honor, were nothing more than Hollywood versions of the War, and described Brothers in Arms as the video game equivalent of Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers by also being an 'authentic and emotional portrayal of war'. Morton claimed that it was 'without a doubt the best World War II game ever made.' Ben Griffin of PC Gamer also praised it for its real portrayal of war, describing it as 'a great history lesson, effortlessly straddling the line between authentic and enjoyable.'[2]
References[edit]
External links[edit]
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brothers_in_Arms:_Road_to_Hill_30&oldid=904096093'
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)
Review: Brothers in Arms - Road to Hill 30 ----------------------------------------------------- Instructions for mixing a Brothers in Arms cocktail: Take 1 part 'Call of Duty'. Combine with 1 part 'Full Spectrum Warrior'. Mix in Unreal graphics engine. Tweak with bloom lighting and blur effects and other minor additions. Sprinkle with a dash of realism. Serve while boasting about how revolutionary the game is, but not until a year has passed after the bars down the street have released similar drinks. That's Brothers in Arms in a nutshell (or a cocktail glass). Brothers in Arms - Road to Hill 30 is -surprise surprise- yet another World War 2 first-person shooter. Produced by Ubisoft and Gearbox (producers of the Half Life add-on 'Opposing Forces'), it is a multi-platform game whose most prominent feature seems to be a massive marketing campaign. Slightly less important are several 'new' features added to the first-person-shooter genre, such as tactical command of squadmates and being based on real historical events. Astute readers may have already detected a hint of cynicism in this review. It's not that I think Brothers in Arms (henceforth BIA) is a bad game; it just seems a year or two late, and I have a hard time getting excited about it. Everything from the gameplay to the graphics to the setting has a 'been there, done that' feeling to it. Had BIA been released in 2003, it would truly have been revolutionary. As it is, it feels like little more than a rehash of other good games that lacks any originality. Take, for instance, the graphics. They're okay, but hardly outstanding. The game utilizes a tweaked version of Epic's Unreal graphics engine, so it is easy on the eyes, but it doesn't equal the graphics of any of the latest games (e.g., Doom, Riddick, Half Life 2, etc.). BIA lacked any sort of jaw-dropping moment when the graphic intensity just knocks you aback; aside from the addition of bloom lighting and (lots of) waving grass, the game barely surpasses the visuals of 'Call of Duty'. This probably has more to do with the art direction, as the latest Unreal engines have proven quite capable. Nonetheless, the graphics don't really stand out. The sound is equally mediocre. The weapons fire is acceptable and presumably authentic, but that's pretty much true for dozens of other World War 2 games that have come out in the years past. The soundtrack is the sort of forgettable orchestral theme that so often accompanies this sort of game. Some of the other sound effects -such as explosions- lack body, and there's a noticeable lack of that full-featured cacophony of sound we've come to expect from modern-day war games. Extraneous background sounds and Foley obviously got the short end of the stick, so the gameworld sounds bare and empty. The voice-acting is average at best; there's a lot of shouting but little in the way of convincing emotion. Similarly, the art design fails to stand out in any way. The character models are all high-poly, decently textured and well animated, but that's par for the course these days. On the other hand, the NPCs don't have a wide variety of animations, which makes them seem stiff and unalive (the conversation animations were almost comical in their retro-ness; the mouths barely moved and the NPCs for the most part just stood stiffly besides one another). The texturing was acceptable -in fact, a touch above what you find in most 'multi-platform' (read: console port) games these days, but often lacking in variety. The level design was fairly linear and very reminiscent of the standard fare found in 'Call of Duty' or 'Medal of Honor', but without any of those magnificent set-pieces like CoD's awesome Stalingrad assault. Set largely in the hedgerows of Normandy, there wasn't much diversity to the environments; it was largely bushes & fields or small provincial towns. Of course, this is exactly the sort of thing you would expect to see in that part of France, so it's hard to complain except that we've seen it so many times before. The levels are average sized -perhaps three or four skirmishes each- and take about twenty to thirty minutes to get through. There are only a few large open areas; for the most part you follow a twisty path between hedges or townhouses. At various points this path branches to allow you to flank an intervening opposing force, but invariably the branches rejoin before the next split, so progression is for the most part very linear. The plot is -like much of the rest of the game- pretty unoriginal: airborne soldier drops into Normandy and fights his way through hordes of German soldiers as part of the D-Day invasion. Of course, as the game is reputedly an accurate re-telling of the 101st's advance through Normandy, one might argue this story is the real original and other games are the copies.. except those other games came out first. There's some attempt at including various sub-plots such as how the characters deal with the deaths of their friends and the camaraderie of soldiers, but this doesn't go very far and falls flat largely due to the unconvincing voice-acting. The hook of the game -the thing that is supposed to set Brothers in Arms apart from the score of other WW2 first person shooters- is the tactical command of up to six other squadmates (or three squadmates and a tank). Alas, BIA once again came late to the scene with this idea, and games like 'Freedom Fighters' or 'Full Spectrum Warrior' beat them to the punch. And once again, BIA failed to bring anything new to the concept; it never surpassed and sometimes was inferior to what had come before. To be fair, BIA's command interface was fairly straightforward; you use one key to toggle between your two squads, and then use a command key which brings up a floating icon. Place this icon on the ground and the selected squad runs to that location; click this icon on an enemy, and you direct the squad's fire at that target. You can also command your squad to 'fall out' (e.g., take cover) or 'fall in' (e.g., follow you), as needed. However, I found the default key-mapping made commanding the troops a bit more difficult than I'd like (often I'd order the troops to run into enemy fire when I accidentally hit the 'command' key when I meant to hit the 'zoom in view' key). However, after re-mapping the commands in options my control of the situation markedly improved. BIA also boasts a 'situational awareness' mode, which pauses the game and displays a zoomed out top-down view of the terrain, showing maybe a 100 feet around you. Nominally this is so you can get an idea of where the enemy is and how best to flank them; however, given how small and linear the levels were, I found this information to be completely obvious from the normal view-point. Furthermore, you cannot give orders in the 'situational awareness' mode, nor can you use it to watch how the enemy soldiers move and react to your orders, since it pauses the game. Both of these design decisions made the situational awareness' mode functionally useless to me and in the end I rarely used it. In design, the gameplay of BIA is supposed to be all about the four 'F's of WW2 close-quarter combat: Find the Enemy, Fix the Enemy with suppressing fire, Flank the Enemy, and then Finish them off. You are supposed to order one squad (your 'fireteam') to a position where they can shoot at the bad-guys while you lead your second squad (your 'assault team') around the corner to take out the enemy from the flank. In practice, I rarely bothered with this rigmarole due to deficiencies in the AI. Even from a flanking position the friendly AI had difficulty taking out enemy soldiers cowering beneath suppressing fire; by and far I did most of the killing in the game. Furthermore, despite an obviously valiant attempt by the AI programmers, the squaddie's AI was exceptionally poor at making use at cover; I'd order my soldiers 'move to right behind this conveniently placed fieldstone wall' and inevitably one soldier would decide to stand IN FRONT of the wall. Therefore, I usually just stuck my squads somewhere safe, ordered them to suppress the enemy, and snuck around and killed the bad guys myself, therefore for the most part ignoring the 'hook' that was supposed to make Brothers in Arms so special. In essence, BIA played out just like 'Call of Duty', except without the impressive set pieces and character (ironically, I felt more attachment to the anonymous friendly AIs in CoD than I did with my 'buddies' in BIA, probably because I had to spend so much work shepherding the squads in Brothers whereas I could let the AI cheerfully sacrifice themselves for me in COD). In any event, the 'tactical command' element of Brothers in Arms largely fell flat for me, and ultimately I played the game largely like any other first person shooter due to the various deficiencies in keeping the squaddies alive. This was made more difficult with the inaccurate (and some argue unrealistic) weapons waver, which made it harder to shoot the enemy soldiers, although this did not bother me as much as it seems to bother other people. (I did get the very strong impression that Gearbox originally wanted the game to play more like the tactical puzzle-game 'Full Spectrum Warrior', but later in development bumped up the action aspect of the game when FSW wasn't as well received as it might have been because it wasn't the first-person shooter people expected it to be. Had Gearbox gone one way or another -a full tactical game like 'Full Spectrum Warrior' or a 'true' action shooter, the game probably would have stood out from the crowd. As it is, the compromises made to satisfy the needs of both genres made the game less exceptional than it could have been.) The enemy AI -while more reactive than in 'Full Spectrum Warrior'- was less dynamic than it could have been; to some degree they shifted fire in reaction to various flanking maneuvers on the player's part, but rarely retreated and never advanced (except for scripted movements when they initially ran into position). They stayed in one position and the player maneuvered around them. BIA also utilized in several areas that hobgoblin of poor game design, endless enemy respawns. Game designers rely on respawns when they can't write compelling situations or code good AI, and therefore instead rely on brute force to rack up the difficulty level. Another failing of BIA's gameplay is that it ultimately becomes very repetitive: move forward to enemy position, situate squad to suppress enemy and fix them in place, maneuver around to flank, repeat ad infinitum. Things become marginally more intense in the few levels that you have tank support (tanks can only be taken out by panzerfaust rocket-launchers, anti-tank emplaced cannons or other tanks), but only marginally so (you use the tank to kill the machine-gun nest that's covering the rear approach to an anti-tank weapon, use the squad to take out the anti-tank weapon, and then repeat). One area that BIA does stand apart from other recent WW2 shooters is that it, amazingly, has gore. It is not a significantly bloody game -units don't show damage when they get shot and bodies disappear after they are killed- but there is some blood and a few (fixed) instances of torn up corpses. This is markedly different from games like Call of Duty, which are clean and sanitized. Brothers in Arms also has some adult language, probably to make it feel 'more realistic'. Speaking of realism -another supposed hallmark of the game- I found it rather lacking. Oh, not the situation or setting; there are some great comparisons of the real-life locations versus the digital representations, and they are very similar. But as far as gameplay goes, it's pretty much like any other shooter; it's an arcade version of the war. This, of course, makes the game more fun, but it goes contrary to the 'true to life' marketing of the game. Although the game is of average length -perhaps 20 hours- the developers decided to increase this by tossing in various 'unlockables' that can only be achieved by finishing the game on its various difficulty levels. These include various movies, animatics, photos and historical data, as well as cheats and -annoyingly- the 'authentic' difficulty level. Given how linear the game is, there would be little reason to replay the game otherwise. BIA supports multiplayer via Internet and LAN. Once again, this is an area that goes unreviewed, as I have no interest in these game modes. But it's nice to see it's there , although there doesn't seem to be a much desired co-operative mode. Brothers in Arms was possibly the buggiest game I have played in a good while; not only did I experience a couple crash-to-desktops (something I very, very rarely experience), but there were also several scripting bugs when the AI would get 'stuck', essentially stopping the game. In the end, I was disappointed with Brothers in Arms. Not because it was really that bad a game, but because it failed to live up to its potential. In almost every area it was matched or bettered by competing products, some of which were released a year or more ago. Had it been released in late 2003 or early 2004, it would have been an instant classic, but the bar has been raised since then. For sheer WW2 action exhilaration, we have Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Medal of Honor, and Call of Duty. For the tactical combat aspect, we have games like Full Spectrum Warrior and Ghost Recon. All these games are as good or are better than BIA. And unfortunately, it can't help but be compared to these games because it borrows so many of their aspects. Nor does it help that it uses the most overplayed setting in gaming history. And that's a shame because -I'll say it again- it is not a bad game. It just fails to stand out and one has a great sense of ennui whilst playing. Brothers in Arms isn't a game to be avoided, but nor is it a product that one rushes out to get. It's.. average. Completely Arbitrary Numerical Score (CANS) (for those who like this sort of thing): 345/500 (just above average) System Specs: Athlon AMD 3000 XP (Barton) 1024 MB RAM PNY Verto GeForce 6600 GT w/128 MB (AGP) Windows XP Brothers in Arms was played at acceptable frame rates at 1280x1024 resolution, with all settings at highest, anti-aliasing off and anisotropy at '2';
TORRENT – FREE DOWNLOAD – CRACKED
Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30™ – Based on a true story. Set during the famous airdrop before the invasion at Normandy, where Sgt. Matt Baker and his squad of 101st Airborne…
Game Overview
Based on a true story. Set during the famous airdrop before the invasion at Normandy, where Sgt. Matt Baker and his squad of 101st Airborne Paratroopers were scattered over the French countryside. As the story unfolds, you must choose between the success of your mission and the lives of your men – your brothers in arms. Brothers In Arms: Road to Hill 30 will immerse players in the historic, eight-day invasion of Normandy – with unparalleled imagery, authenticity, sound, and gameplay. One of a kind: Brothers In Arms Road to Hill 30 is the only first-person tactical…
Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30™
Gearbox Software
Ubisoft
15 Mar, 2005
Action, Shooter, Strategy
DOWNLOAD LINKS
Brothers in Arms Road to Hill 30
P2P
2.87 GB
TORRENT LINKSystem Requirement
Comments are closed.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |