X360, PS3 Tuesday, September 30, 2008 | 12:54 PM

Brothers in Arms: HH Q&A

Brothers in Arms: HH Q&A

Ubisoft's and Gearbox's Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway was released last week in both Europe and the US, and here's a new Q&A provided by XCN. As before, the interview consists of questions submitted by different sites and members, so it's a big mix of different stuff. I remember some of these from our forums, and this one covers everything from delays, multiplayer, physics to demos and much more. With some luck we'll have a copy of the game this week and the First 10 Minutes online.


All comments

Page 1 2 >>
Commented on 2008-09-30 15:38:20
Cool interview. All the reviews seem to say it's pretty good and the multiplayer seems interesting. I look forward to trying the demo.
Commented on 2008-09-30 16:39:26
I picked it up on release having never played any of the series before. Got to admit it's very good. I'm more a run'n'gunner but this is a refreshing change of pace.

It's also pretty gory for a WW2 shooter, arms, legs and bits of heads flying everywhere when hit by a grenade or bazooka round.
Commented on 2008-09-30 17:22:04
this game has the worse, most broken, throw away multiplayer i've ever played... so much potential was looked over its a crime. Theres a reason why they withheld the multiplayer section from the review codes guys.

Its also a huge oversight not to of focused on implimenting a singleplayer campaign co-op option...something this game would be suited perfectly for, which each player commanding the asult team, or the subpressing fire team. A missed oppertunity.

Infact the whole game feels like a missed oppertunity. Its not a bad game by any means, but it does sit comfortably on the side of adverage.

From a visual stand point its lacking... sometimes it can look beautiful, the character models are paticularly done well. But then its plauged by washed out textures that litter most interiors you go through.

The mooted storyline is also more comedic than emotional. Badly acted, and confusingly laid out, the cutscenes may look pretty but they certainly dont pull on the heart strings as the developers would of wished.

The gameplay is pure brothers in arms affair.. if you've played a prequal you know what to expect here..just dont expect anything more. The same issues are still alive and well, with the added extra of a camera that has a mind of its own once in 3rd person view.
You soon realise that levels are actually set out very linear..imagine a straight line that zig zags on occasion. Have your team surpress fire whilst you go around the side and flank them. Theres not really room for imaginative tactical planning..you're always lead by the hand to a stone wall to cover behind as you stare straight on at the enemy. Its another shame that they couldnt of opened up the buildings that surround you..having gone to the effert to recreate the place.

Then theres the obligotory tank mission that makes a mockery of the whole "war is hell", and places you in an arcade style excuse to blow limbs up mindlessly.

All in all, certainly not worth the wait, or the delays. If you're buying it go into it with the frame of mind that you're simply getting a hi def version of the other brothers in arms.. only with far too many missions where you find yourself without a team to command and go solo (which kinda removes the point of what differes this series from the countless other ww2 offerings). Don't expect anything from multiplayer...they've really no right to take pride in that. Don't expect to be wowed by the physics.. they are limited to wooden walls and creates being destructable...which would of been impressive last year, but kind of laughable in the fuss gearbox made about it now when compared to games like bad company. Don't expect there to be much lifespan once you've completed it. And dont expect it to look as pretty as the first "gameplay" footage they showed of it way back last year.
Commented on 2008-09-30 17:23:09
Picked it up, and was somewhat impressed by the singleplayer, yet HUGELY dissapointed by the multiplayer.

No, not because its slow-paced, i like that type of stuff. But rather because of the INSANE LAG.. Seriously, every single game session i have joined since i got the game has been so laggy that people can often be seen running into walls, staying there for 5 seconds, before appearing 100 feet away as if by magical teleportation.

It doesnt matter how interesting the multiplayer is, or how cool the classes are, or anything, if the game itself is unplayable in multiplayer due to lag.
And no, its not my router, its not my firewall, its not my internet connection. 98% of every other AAA game i have played this millennia, be it on the PC or the 360, has pretty much always had neglible lag online, even games with poor netcodes.
BiA:HH takes it to a whole new level.

This makes playing online completely un-fun, especially when the enemies you shoot at, do the same. I cant believe an AAA game in 2008 has the netcode of Quake 1 or Unreal 1.. Its mindboggling.
We have truly been spoiled lately by pretty much every single 360 game running smooth as silk online. But why should we accept anything but that?
I know i wont, will trade in this game for Baja tomorrow :)


One thing i forgot to add was the singleplayer bug i had, that failed to realize that i had defended an area from enemies, in the very first chapter of the story! Making it unable to progress, even after 4 tries..
Nice game that cant even be finished, lol..
Commented on 2008-09-30 17:29:09 In reply to bleachedsmiles
Posted by bleachedsmiles
this game has the worse, most broken, throw away multiplayer i've ever played... so much potential was looked over its a crime. Theres a reason why they withheld the multiplayer section from the review codes fokes.

Its also a huge oversight not to of focused on implimenting a singleplayer campaign co-op option...something this game would be suited perfectly for, which each player commanding the asult team, or the subpressing fire team. A missed oppertunity.

Infact the whole game feels like a missed oppertunity. Its not a bad game by any means, but it does sit comfortably on the side of adverage.

From a visual stand point its lacking... sometimes it can look beautiful, the character models are paticularly done well. But then its plauged by washed out textures that litter most interiors you go through.

The mooted storyline is also more comedic than emotional. Badly acted, and confusingly laid out, the cutscenes may look pretty but they certainly dont pull on the heart strings as the developers would of wished.

The gameplay is pure brothers in arms affair.. if you've played a prequal you know what to expect here..just dont expect anything more. The same issues are still alive and well, with the added extra of a camera that has a mind of its own once in 3rd person view.
You soon realise that levels are actually set out very linear..imagine a straight line that zig zags on occasion. Have your team surpress fire whilst you go around the side and flank them. Theres not really room for imaginative tactical planning..you're always lead by the hand to a stone wall to cover behind as you stare straight on at the enemy. Its another shame that they couldnt of opened up the buildings that surround you..having gone to the effert to recreate the place.

Then theres the obligotory tank mission that makes a mockery of the whole "war is hell", and places you in an arcade style excuse to blow limbs up mindlessly.

All in all, certainly not worth the wait, or the delays. If you're buying it go into it with the frame of mind that you're simply getting a hi def version of the other brothers in arms.. only with far too many missions where you find yourself without a team to command and go solo (which kinda removes the point of what differes this series from the countless other ww2 offerings). Don't expect anything from multiplayer...they've really no right to take pride in that. Don't expect to be wowed by the physics.. they are limited to wooden walls and creates being destructable...which would of been impressive last year, but kind of laughable in the fuss gearbox made about it now when compared to games like bad company. Don't expect there to be much lifespan once you've completed it. And dont expect it to look as pretty as the first "gameplay" footage they showed of it way back last year.
Not meaning to be a dick or anything, it's just a bit of advice this: next time you write an essay-like opinion, make sure you know how to actually spell words correctly instead of writing them how they sound. Not so much for your own benefit as for the actual audience. Other than that, good post.
Commented on 2008-09-30 17:32:34 In reply to dingleberry
Posted by dingleberry
Not meaning to be a dick or anything, it's just a bit of advice this: next time you write an essay-like opinion, make sure you know how to actually spell words correctly instead of writing them how they sound. Not so much for your own benefit as for the actual audience. Other than that, good post.
I wrote a quick mini review, you neednt of read it..i wouldnt of been heartbroken if you didnt. But i'm always up for a spelling lesson if you care to share the spelling mistakes that caused you such offence
Commented on 2008-09-30 19:07:00 In reply to dingleberry
Posted by dingleberry
Not meaning to be a dick or anything, it's just a bit of advice this: next time you write an essay-like opinion, make sure you know how to actually spell words correctly instead of writing them how they sound. Not so much for your own benefit as for the actual audience. Other than that, good post.
Gamersyde is orignally a FRENCH site. France is in Europe. Most peeps visiting this site arent simply american, australian, nor british, they are in fact, from anywhere in the world.

In case you skipped geography class, most people in this world (our planet, Earth, in case you skipped that class too) are in fact speaking other languages than English.

You see, thats why people dont spell perfectly on the internet, because they arent exclusively american. Do you spell perfect French? Or Swedish? Or Malinese?
Get it? :=)
Commented on 2008-09-30 20:20:21
That would be a good excuse if some of the worst English grammar in the world didn't come out of England and America :P
Commented on 2008-09-30 21:39:30
enjoyed the single player but the multiplayer is a mess, now i know why we never seen anything until you play it...because its poor. one game mode.
feels like they spent a fraction of the time on multplayer than they did on the singleplayer.
the old BIA xbox versions had great multiplayer why change it.... luckly fia09 and pes 2009 and all the other great games coming soon.
Commented on 2008-09-30 21:43:48
But.. the single player is good? Great? I'm considering picking up this PC version this week. I'd love to hear more impressions of the campaign, since that's what concerns me most with this title anyway.
Commented on 2008-09-30 23:20:14 In reply to GriftGFX
Posted by GriftGFX
But.. the single player is good? Great? I'm considering picking up this PC version this week. I'd love to hear more impressions of the campaign, since that's what concerns me most with this title anyway.
i had fun with the single player, great levels..your team mates AI is the worst thing about the single player..sometimes when you tell them to go to a spot they willl run the longest and most dangerous way..lol
the tank missions wasnt needed i feel.
i will play through it again on hardest level when i get a chance...
but was fun...
Commented on 2008-09-30 23:28:03
I'm playing this anyway 'an,

As fer the moment me Wife needs a beati'n.
Commented on 2008-10-01 03:23:21 In reply to PlumbDrumb
.... whaaaaaaat?
Commented on 2008-10-01 08:05:27
Stupid team mate AI put me off this game. One look at the videos of them running into bullets and taking cover on the wrong side of walls and the game was doomed in my mind.
Commented on 2008-10-01 11:04:25
Great game. Finished it 2 days ago but there seem to be some levels missing. Remember on Gamerysyde 2 movies from it. But they are simply missing from the game??

1. A movie from our "hero" sitting in a shop and the shop blows up. Our hero gets a piece of metal in his leg or so and pulls it out. ==>seen in development, but not in the game?


2. This one surely many Gamersyde people know : it's the level where there is anti air gun on a roof. There was a movie about it with the developers talking about it while some guy played it. Demonstrating the "coolness" of the game. I.e. saying that you have to find out the goal of the mission while playing. On this level you could see far in the sky some clouds caused by the antiaircraft gun. As a result - they said - you can deduct there is such a gun somewhere that is killing the good guys. Therefore it is your task to find it and take it out. It looked pretty cool, but didn't see it in the game.



Liked the game a lot though. Shame the AI was a bit silly from time to time and the levels itself where quite small (felt a bit predetermined to me with few strategic options).
Commented on 2008-10-01 11:52:01 In reply to bleachedsmiles
Posted by bleachedsmiles
HUGE WALL OF TEXT
Thanks for the huge rant/review. Now my response:

1. Tank mission: it's there to clear up the road and destroy the 88s, so Maker can get to Peter, the little boy. Did you watch the cutscene after it? I don't know where you got the metaphor "war is hell" from this mission, there wasn't any music playing or any reference to Full Metal Jacket or whatever.

2. What were you expecting "more" from the BiA gameplay? You get to command MG and Bazooka teams for the first time. I say that's a big addition. Do you want more commands and make it more complicated, so it's less inviting for new players?

3. Graphically, it's still phenomenal to me. I know already that it's Unreal Engine 3, so I can forgive texture pop-in, and when the textures are loaded, it's a stunning game (esp. later levels).

4. Solo missions were for variety in missions. Reviewers would hate the game if it was just squad stuff, and would say it's "repetitive" or whatnot. Having a tank level, having you go solo JUST FOR 5 MINUTES, and then some people still complain. Damned if you, and damned if you don't.

5. Co-op wouldn't be suitable, it would make the game hugely unbalanced. Having 2 player co-op where you take over Fire Team, and someone else take Assault Team, would then remove the need for Matt Baker as a Sergeant and remove squad tactics, and become a run-and-gun Halo co-op affair.

6. The storyline is great, giving you times to rest and let the relationships between characters grow. I myself, am now attached to these new characters, who are replacements for Allen and Garnett and KEVIN Leggett dying in the past games. It's not badly acted, face mo-cap is fine, not plenty emotional or melodramatic. Just right. A lot of moments, the game DID pull on my heartstrings, like when the 1st chapter ended gave me a literal GASP! and some really touching moments like when Dawson is talking to Baker under the stars about faith and the gun "For Matthew - Brothers in Arms". Many moments like that. And when the little boy dies (spoiler), that was shocking to me. Emotion is a very subjective thing, like in movies, so maybe I can understand you not being affected by the cutscenes.

7. The levels are obviously linear, it's not Crysis! But there's a huge improvement over previous BiA games, because not as many "invisible walls" and much more room to maneuver around. You're actually given more room to maneuver your teams, from the left or the right or middle. Example is, repelling German counterattack in Chapter "Five Oh-Sink". In "Baptism of Fire" you start off from the tree you were sitting on, and have a HUGE farmfield in front of you to run around.

8. All your points don't live up to the hype of you promising to say the game is "average". All the hype and delay to your answer, and all the paragraphs were disappointing because you couldn't deliver justice to your statements. How ironic, isn't it? Oh well, maybe your essay needed more development time to cook. Could've been a great essay.
Commented on 2008-10-01 14:56:45 In reply to digi_matrix
Posted by digi_matrix
EVEN LARGER WALL OF TEXT.
1)Ok, you missed the point i was trying to make about the thrown in tank mission. The whole underlining message of this game is that "war is hell"...there are consequences for actions, life is precious ect ect.
The tank mission goes against that message by glorifying the realities of war in turning the game briefly into an arcade blast them up of gore and sniggers as you make your way down a straight line. Thats how i felt in my review. And thats why it stood out like a sore thumb.

2)Ofcourse i was personally expecting more from a new generation version of Brothers in arms other than a visual upgrade. Like i said, it would of been nice to have co-op, or even a playerable multiplayer.

3)Graphically its a let down. It's not an ugly game, i said that there are moments of beauty. But its certainly not "phenomenal" looking to me..and i said such. Had it of hit when it was supposed to...or looked like the first footage they showed of it where the building you're in gets hit, then it would of stood out.

4)Solo missions may of been for variety...doesnt mean they were any good.

5)Co-op would of been perfectly suited for this game, and i wouldnt be surprised if we see it in the next one. Theres no reason why both players couldnt command different divisions...one as baker, the other as hartsock. Theres also no reason why they couldnt start are different points of the map and work their way commanding their personal squads to the shared target.
How the game would ever turn into halo i dont know...you can not run and gun in this game, regardless of it if would be co-op or not.

6)The storyline is terribly put together, and completely lost on those that are new to the series. Its badly acted..which stands out all the more when there's usually a complete lack of facial animation. The only thing that pulled on my heartstrings was when they were randomly talking about which animals fearcer.

7)The level design is standard at best..which is why i felt there was a missed opportunitie. They made a big deal on how they recreated everything exactly how it was...and then you realise that the levels amount to nothing more than a straight line each time..with the occasional open field. It would of been nice to have some variety to your command...instead of constantly having a choice of pointing your squad to a wall, why not have a few buildings open...get your supressing fire team in an upstairs window. It doesnt have to be a huge open world like crysis.

And you're wrong.. its just as linear as the pervious BIA games, maybe even more so.

8)My review of it was just that...a review, a personal opinion. If you didnt agree then fine..doesnt mean i'm wrong, its a PERSONAL OPINION.
Commented on 2008-10-01 17:34:55 In reply to bleachedsmiles
This message is in "Boulet Time" (TM), If you still *really* want to see it, click here

Commented on 2008-10-01 17:48:23 In reply to aminmirza
Posted by aminmirza
you really suck at writing reviews. Try saying this to Randy Pitchfords face. He'll kick the shit out of you. This game is far better than you've portrayed it
lol, well i wouldnt want to get beat up by anybody called Randy...let alone Randy Pitchford. I'm not saying anything that other reviews havent said though..so i'm sure i'm way down his "revenge list". Theres a reason its been getting aload of 7's.

I've actually played and completed the game.. this was just my own opinion on it thats all. I'm a fan of the series, and i had been looking forward to the game for the last 2years. So its not like i'm blindly out to get the game for the sake of it..i do after all OWN IT.
Commented on 2008-10-01 19:55:37
This is a really good game. If you loved the previous two brothers in arms, you are gonna like this even more. It's not gonna be game of the year, but definitely a triple AAA title that delivers. 8.7/10 for me.
Commented on 2008-10-01 20:01:31
this game sucks.
Commented on 2008-10-01 20:02:33
BIA:HH is a waste as is for a good amount of reasons. Yet for me, although I have yet to play the MP aspect and having only gone through 90% of the campaign, I'm burned out by how limited it all appears. From limited graphics, AI to level design, all of it is limited.

Plus my personal beef is with my hate for ridiculously forced or time wasting achievements intended to keep us playing games we have either beaten or disliked for whatever reason. But in this case, the achievements linked to online MP force us gamers to play a MP that the developer/programmer must have known we would be ready to pull our hair out rather than play. Highway robbery man, super insulting. Not Turning Point horrible or Mercenaries 2 bad, but Army of Two sloppy style game play with some LAME achievements nonetheless. Achievements I speak of here are Focused, Committed, Obsessive & Remember September '44, I mean WTF?! Especially the last one, seriously retarded.
Commented on 2008-10-02 09:33:28 In reply to bleachedsmiles
I understand, sorry about flaming you. I purchased the game last week and i think the E3 2007 and 2006 builds looked better in the visual department. Maybe the had to downgrade the graphics to sqeeze all the content onto the disc.
Commented on 2008-10-02 11:07:08 In reply to bleachedsmiles
Posted by bleachedsmiles
If people are new to the series, should anyone be sorry that you don't know that the soldiers made Leggett guilty of letting Allen and Garnett die? If anyone came into Halo 3 as new, then should I feel sorry for newcomers that the game doesn't introduce everyone for a 40 minute cutscene? These games are story-based, so if you really have a problem, just read up or go play the previous games. Plus, it's not MGS 4, so you don't have to worry about plot points or anything. And it's cool to see the characters develop even more.

Still disagree with you tank mission. Your mission is to take out some 88s. I don't see it glorifying war, there was no sniggery, the tank guy wasn't laughing or joking the whole way through that mission. The message of this game is all about the fragility of life, being brothers, and making a difference. But it's not about caring about the German soldiers' lives, so I don't see how this mission goes against the game's message.

My perspective is, this game is a HUGE improvement over the last games, and comes with so many new tweaks, that it feels like a proper sequel. Sure, co-op would've been great, maybe next game, but they never promised that from the start. If you don't believe that the game is a big improvement over the previous games, then I can message you 20 bullet-points if you want. But dude, don't call it a review, makes you look like an idiot. Review doesn't equal opinion, look it up.
Commented on 2008-10-02 11:14:53 In reply to JohnnyNeat
Posted by JohnnyNeat
Did you just rant about achievements? Achievement whore. Boohoo. No one's forcing you to complete all the achievements.

I don't feel the game's limiting, in terms of when you're in the thick of it, you're given a smorgasboard of options during combat. "Digging in" is a huge addition. Feels more realistic in this setting. I commend the level design, because it sticks true to what actually happened, instead of becoming a Call of Duty 1/2/3 level. Level design's fine with me. AI's fine with me. Graphics are also fine to me.

Could you elaborate maybe, on how it's limiting?
Page 1 2 >>

About the game


What's up?
  • aphex187
    aphex187 @asdfg: Wasn't at you just people in general always have something to gripe about Ubi when they've made some pretty fine games as of late :D (37 minutes ago)
  • asdfg
    asdfg @aphex187: seriously though. Not hating, just a tad annoyed by their lack of communication compared to companies like Blizz and Psyonix. (44 minutes ago)
  • asdfg
    asdfg @aphex187: but gaming is my life. :) (45 minutes ago)
  • aphex187
    aphex187 People hating on Ubi is getting boring now, get a life people! (52 minutes ago)
  • aphex187
    aphex187 Ubi servers were getting hit due to Ass 3 being free on that day or was that total BS? Either way so fuck, it was a few hours down and most of them i was at work (52 minutes ago)
  • GriftGFX
    GriftGFX I'm really looking forward to a few things in development.. and we could survive off of what we have for a long time. (54 minutes ago)
  • GriftGFX
    GriftGFX All things considered FPS as a PVP genre is the healthiest it's been in years and years. Pretty cool really. We've got options as consumers and things are still looking positive going forward. (1 Hour ago)
PreviousNext
  • Driftwood
    Driftwood GSY is getting some nice content at 3 pm CEST with our July podcast and some videos of the Deus Ex Mankind Divided preview build. :) (> 3 Months ago)
  • Driftwood
    Driftwood For once we'll be live at 4:30 pm CEST. Blim should not even be tired! (> 3 Months ago)
  • Driftwood
    Driftwood More Quantum Break coverage coming in a few hours, 9:00 a.m CEST. (> 3 Months ago)
  • Driftwood
    Driftwood We'll have a full review up for Firewatch at 7 pm CET. Videos will only be tomorrow though. (> 3 Months ago)
  • Driftwood
    Driftwood Tonight's livestream will be at 9:15 GMT+1, not GMT+2 as first stated. (> 3 Months ago)
  • Driftwood
    Driftwood New GSY Live dedicated this time to Just Cause 3 on Tuesday 9:30 GMT+2 (> 3 Months ago)
  • Driftwood
    Driftwood Join us tomorrow at 10 pm GMT+2 for a new livestream. We'll be playing Rise of the Tomb Raider. (> 3 Months ago)
PreviousNext
Top stories