• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Brothers in Arms HH E3 trailer

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#101
Hmmmm, I must be thinking of something else then. Apologies on my error.

Doesn't very much change the fact that cover systems like that are bad.
And just because they're a lot of games makes them a good thing (for example lots of people buy Nickelback albums)...surely the fact that it's appearing in more and more games is a bad thing?

Not only is it extremely lazy from a development point of view (and shows a complete lack of ingenuity), it's a particular style of gameplay which removes most tactical elements of combat completely, you don't have to identify targets, you don't have to locate them, flush them out, all you have to do is pop your head up and shoot. There is nothing but "gameplay" left for you to do.

What possible justification could you come up with for a system like that in an "authentic" shooter?

I'm all ears.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#104
DraKon2k said:
It's not authentic in things like gameplay(how can gameplay be authentic? it can be realistic but not authentic) but in things about history. They accurately recreated the weapons, maps etc.
Click to expand...

Gameplay can be authentic by having a combat system that at least semi-accurately makes you do what soldiers had to do.

If you depict the combat accurately then that makes it authentic. Not the relatively brainless approach seen in that video.

What the hell is the point in going to all the trouble of making the game accurate in all respects with regards historical accuracy, weapons, locations etc then completely going arse backwards on it by giving you a godlike power to see wherever an enemy is when you're in cover?

If you're not going to at least portray a historical conflict accurately then don't bother! It's insulting, I can think for myself!

And IMO it is slightly disrespectful to the conflict itself.
 
Upvote 0
#105
SheepDip said:
Gameplay can be authentic by having a combat system that at least semi-accurately makes you do what soldiers had to do.

If you depict the combat accurately then that makes it authentic. Not the relatively brainless approach seen in that video.

What the hell is the point in going to all the trouble of making the game accurate in all respects with regards historical accuracy, weapons, locations etc then completely going arse backwards on it by giving you a godlike power to see wherever an enemy is when you're in cover?
Click to expand...
Dude it's not like you could suddenly see through walls. Also the gameplay stays pretty much the same from what I read, you still have to flank your enemies most times.
SheepDip said:
If you're not going to at least portray a historical conflict accurately then don't bother! It's insulting, I can think for myself!

And IMO it is slightly disrespectful to the conflict itself.
Click to expand...
I think you know it yourself that now you're going way too far.
 
Upvote 0
#107
DraKon2k said:
Dude it's not like you could suddenly see through walls. Also the gameplay stays pretty much the same from what I read, you still have to flank your enemies most times.
Click to expand...

I can't really see the point of "flanking an enemy" over and over again if his position is shoved in my face. Won't that get slightly boring? All you'll get is a hollywood WW2 experience.

I think you know it yourself that now you're going way too far.
Click to expand...
Not really, there are enough generic WW2 shooters as it is. What's the point in making another one? It's just getting milked.

Despite how pointless and unimaginative it is I'm sure plenty of people will go out and buy the game, and I'm sure it'll get some great reviews and ratings just like every other piece of ****.

Bored with this now.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#108
SheepDip said:
I can't really see the point of "flanking an enemy" over and over again if his position is shoved in my face. Won't that get slightly boring? All you'll get is a hollywood WW2 experience.

Not really, there are enough generic WW2 shooters as it is. What's the point in making another one? It's just getting milked.

Despite how pointless and unimaginative it is I'm sure plenty of people will go out and buy the game, and I'm sure it'll get some great reviews and ratings just like every other piece of ****.

Bored with this now.
Click to expand...
Now I'm not defending Ubisoft's decision to implement this, but you could always see where the enemies were when you were behind cover, via Situational Awareness View in the previous BIA games. So really that point is moot. Though I personally still don't like 3rd person view cover systems in a game that is trying to portray some authenticity and/or realism. And to me, it seems rather pointless, in the original BIA games you were supposed to move behind cover to flank or you were to get out of cover to lay down suppressing fire. A cover system makes you way to immobile to do the former, and not have the range (and possibly not the accuracy) to do the latter.
 
Upvote 0
#109
SheepDip said:
I can't really see the point of "flanking an enemy" over and over again if his position is shoved in my face. Won't that get slightly boring? All you'll get is a hollywood WW2 experience.
Click to expand...

No offense, but for some reason the arguments of this problem seems to be like "They try to be bit unique and maybe have something unrealistic done along the way, it sucks", and if that would not be the case I believe it would be "another mass-destruction america-wins-the-war-alone-shooter, it sucks."


Also I don't know how in the hell Ubi can call it 'authentic' when we all know that they changed the outcome of the battle to a victory [snip]
Click to expand...


American part of the Operation Market Garden WAS success when it came to their objectives and such. So what's the "changed the outcome of the battle to a victory" then? Seriously. The fact the operation outcome was a failure (while Montgomery considered it as a 90% success, or was it 80%), that doesn't mean every damm battle was a failure.

US sectords had only IIRC two bridges blown, Son bridge over Wilhelmina canal in Eindhoven sector and one bridge between Eindhoven and Nijmegen, which was not important one even. 82nd secured all their objectives expect Nijmegen due problems in chain of command during day 1, and from day 2 onwards they were rooting the city slower and slower etc etc.

So seriously, where's the damm failure about that?

Edit: Cleaned up grammar, just waking up + posting something is superior idea.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#116
Why does Randy Pitchford think things like a camera focusing on dismembering bodies coupled with rag-doll physics is so damn cutting edge? He was like that with the very first BIA, bragging about innovations that were already prevalent.

I know I'm kicking up old sand here, but goddamn it :mad:

"If we lost WW2 we wouldn't have windows." It speaks for itself.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu