Brothers in Arms series smeared.

[Murphy]

Sad, I really liked all three BiA games and was hoping for the Ardennes BiA they were planning. Instead this. Do not like.

Exactly. I really liked the first three too. They weren't combat sims, but they were great war dramas with, for the most part great writing.
HH a little less than the first too, because the writing reeked of "writing". The Christian fella snooping around, the "dark secret", the bit with the boy... but I admit, there were times where I played on because I wanted to know how the story ended! I still liked the game a lot. Broken(er) cover system or not. It was also great to see the Netherlands in a ww2 for once.

I was looking forward to the Ardennes sequel HH's ending suggested.

I also loved Borderlands and Inglorious Basterds though, so if they can get their sh- together and make this FF4 game work, I might play it. Doesn't look all that great at the moment, but the concept has potential, imo. We'll see.

Trading it in for the actual sequel to HH though? Never! I would hate that.
As a little side-project, fine. Still iffy with the name, but what are you gonna do. But I seriously hope this isn't the new direction of the series.

 

[Fedorov]

Should have been called Basterds in Arms, or Basterdlands, or Brothers in Borderlands, or... Borders in Lands.

Brotherlands?

 

[Ralfst3r]

I was also dissapointed when I saw this. I was hoping for a Battle of the Bulge BIA. Instead they come with a Inglorious Basterds the game, which I personally found to be a terrible movie.

 

[NoxNoctum]

Should have been called Basterds in Arms, or Basterdlands, or Brothers in Borderlands, or... Borders in Lands.

Brotherlands?

Brothelands.

 

[EvilAmericanMan]

I think that the whole outrage is that the devs decided to take a series and utterly reverse it. Whether you like the changes or the original game, it really shouldn't have gone under that series; thats just marketing, and is garunteed to anger the community (and a company should keep some respect at least for the community).

Now, if they want to make a video game of Inglorious Basterds, they can go ahead. Its all a matter of peoples tastes, if they want a cartoony ridiculous over-the-top nukem vs nazi game, then they have just as much of a right to entertainment as those who want something completely different. However, hijacking a series thats the complete opposite of that and basically trying to kill that series for the purpose of fueling something totally different...what were they expecting? Also, complaints about quality, ect, are okay (if they actually exist), as those are less subjective.

True and its pretty unprecedented to do something like this. For a reason, too.

 

[Grobut]

True and its pretty unprecedented to do something like this. For a reason, too.

I woulden't say unprecedented (lot's of good old franchises have taken it up the pooper over the years), but it's definately the most jarring and extreme change i've seen done to a franchise from one release to the next..

 

[hockeywarrior]

At the end of the day, it matters little what you think of Brothers in Arms as a game.

The principle behind a crazy shift like this is at the heart of the matter. Hell, the very first game was even endorsed by the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Jesus, think how insulting it would be for them to see an endorsed franchise go in this direction?

It's not offensive because they want to make a game just like Inglorious Basterds - it is because they are throwing the BiA name all over it in a pathetic effort to get sales from those who don't know any better, or for sheer publicity.

In short, they don't have the balls to just create a new IP without tying it in someway - no matter how ludicrous - to a previously successful franchise. So sad.

 

[GeneralGinger]

This makes me sad. That big end game speak about the north for this? I am disappoint.

 

[Alexander Ostmann]

What the...

 

[Chadwiick]

And this only add fuel to my fire on why I gave up on ubisoft... lets see what games do I have, BiA: EiB (Which was good), Assassins Creed I&II (I'm done with that series) and I am sure I have others, but every one of them was a disappointment to me, except for EiB of course.

 

[Amerikaner]

And this only add fuel to my fire on why I gave up on ubisoft... lets see what games do I have, BiA: EiB (Which was good), Assassins Creed I&II (I'm done with that series) and I am sure I have others, but every one of them was a disappointment to me, except for EiB of course.

They also ruined the Splinter Cell series.

 

[dogbadger]

They also ruined the Splinter Cell series.

still, at least the R6 series has gone from strength to strength.

 

[BlackLabel]

cute guys..really cute...

BIA was never good and you know it.

Also the kids will LOVE the new brainless wankfest.

 

[[-project.rattus-]]

still, at least the R6 series has gone from strength to strength.

I do hope that was sarcastic...

 

[Reise]

Gonna kill me some GNATSIES.

Spoiler!

+1 form of entertainment that dehumanizes soldiers of WW2, most notably the GERMANS.

 

[Actin]

still, at least the R6 series has gone from strength to strength.

If there is one series that was crushed into the ground by ubisoft and where ubi spat in our faces, it is Rainbow six... After Raven shield it was steep downhill, so much brakes wouldn't help.

 

[kapulA]

Imho, even the previous BiAs were mediocre at best - now they've just gone full retard. :IS2:

 

[Murphy]

Nah, the previous ones were great, imo. Not their fault that some here expected combat simulators and were gravely disappointed. As far as "action-puzzle-ww2-drama games with really weird looking first-person hands" go they were top-of-the-line!

Even Hells Highway was great, although the writing was much worse than in the previous games (maybe because it wasn't based on real after-action reports anymore?) and the gameplay was sabotaged by the retarded implementation of the cover system. But still! Great game.

The new one though... The overall concept is funny, imo, but how they turned it into a game doesn't really grab me, and that it's a "Brothers in Arms" game is a disgrace. Whether you're too-cool-for-the-room to cut the first two BiA games some slack shouldn't even be a factor in this, with the change being so radical.
Saying "oh the old ones weren't great either ololol" is elitist prickery, imo.

Not that there is anything wrong with elitist prickery!:IS2:

 

[kapulA]

I'm not sure how saying that the game wasn't that good is elitist if it displayed all engagements in WW2 to have been resolved by <suppress enemy> <flank enemy using a conveniently placed stack of crates/wall/hedgerow> <win>, and trying to present that as 'tactical'...
But not like any of that is relevant to the thread topic, so let's not pursue it any longer if we happen to disagree

 

[Murphy]

Sure. The thing is, games can be tactical, even if the tactics aren't real-world tactics. Extreme example: Chess. Also, it's a bit too simplistic to boil the games down to just supressing and flanking. Sure, that's what they're about, but it's a bit like boiling SWAT and Rainbow Six down to entering every room very slowly with that cake-fragment tactic, whatever the official name is. It's unrealistic, it works every time, but people don't seem to hold it against the games.
But yeah, agree to disagree.

I didn't dislike your post, btw. In case you're wondering. I don't dislike stuff I disagree with. I disagree with it.