Brothers in Arms

[Mattc0m]

This looks like its going to be a pretty good game, I was a pretty big fan of CoD, but by the time UO came out the scripted nature of it was starting to peeve me.

Anyways, I'm curious about its multiplayer aspect of Brothers in Arms. Does anyone know what this will be like and feature?

[ProStyle]

The last interview I read with a Gearbox person had some information on it. They said it was going to be a very similar situation to singleplayer, that is you are still in command of a squad of AI troops. So if I understand it correctly, every individual player on a server will be a captain of his squad and they will all lead their fireteams against each other.

If this is true I beleive it sounds unique and interesting, and if done correctly it could be a blast. I do see certain issues arising, namely with their supposed deviation from the standard "hitpoint" system. In another previous interview I read, they said they were going to attemp to "avoid the 1hp problem" - that is, how is a WW2 soldier fully functional with 1HP? No matter which way you look at it, in a multiplayer setting you will be coming full circle with any solution. Another problem would be, what happens when the NPC's find themselves without a team captain? Will they just stand their idling with no commands, or split off to randomly be killed as AI fodder? Who knows. I am looking forward to it though, and correct me if I'm wrong - but it is on Source still? I remember reading a (what I figured was) a botched link, stating it was on the Unreal Engine.

[Goonch]

This title should be going gold soon if it is to meet its estimated street date of February 2005.

I, for one, am very much looking forward to it. They seem to be pushing the historical accuracy aspect of the game. I like that.

[Mattc0m]

Now that the game for the Xbox is out (and the PC now I believe... but if not it will be shortly) does anyone have anymore details on the MP aspect? I'm definately going to purchase it for its single-player portion, but I'm really interested in its multiplayer. Its the difference of me buying it now or in a few months.

So, does anyone have any hands-on reports of the multiplayer? Or any thoughts on the game in general?

Thanks!

[Peter Frazier]

I'm interested in the game but the multiplayer sounds a bit limited. They're all mission based maps and I'm wondering how long it will take before each one gets a 'perfect plan' that will be the only way to playonline. I much prefer the fuzziness that comes from BF42.
The number of maps also sounds limited.

[Matthew Gallant]

Hi, former tester here. I mostly tested the single player, though.

Multiplayer is very fast paced. The maps are pretty small, and the objectives are two-stage affairs (find secret plans, take them to a truck).

If you die, a member of your team (half a squad) gets a "field promotion" and you take them over. When your whole team is dead, they respawn. Weapon damage of the different types of weapons is altered a bit from single player, for balance.

It's certainly a different sort of game from your standard multi.

[Jim Preston]

I've put in about 4 hours into the single player and I have to say I'm not that impressed. First, the friendly AI is pretty good, largely because they have been programmed precisely for the geometry of the individual levels, which is understandable from a programmatic perspective. But the levels are also constructed in a way that feels very artificial, with perfect cover every twenty feet or so -- a pile of logs here, and over-turned cart there, and often a very convenient dirt mound. The whole thing feels like playing in a long, narrow paintball world with a WW2 skin. It just didn't click with me.

However, the opposing AI is merely adequate in most coses and downright bad in many others. They can tell when you are flanking them, and smartly turn to face the immediate threat, but if you go back into hiding they eventually forget you were even there, letting you pick them off with leisure (you'll have to use the down-the-sites mechanism as there is no crosshairs in the game). Also, their reaction to grenades is very, very sluggish. I threw a grenade into a barracks of soldiers sitting at a table and they didn't even budge until the grenade went off, killing them all. Likewise, scenarios where you have to man a fixed MG sees the Germans pretty much running directly at you, while you just sit there and hold down the right trigger. Maybe these Ostbrigade guys really were gun fodder, but they either didn't have grenades in the war and hence not in this game, or they didn't bother to program in grenade use for enemy AI. Oh, and I played on Normal setting, so maybe if I were to up the difficulty they AI might make smarter choices.

Finally, I don't like games, especially action games, where I feel restricted in my movement. Any paratrooper dropping behind lines would be able to hop over a four foot wall, and at least climb something around 6 feet. It's probably not a big deal to most people, but I hate useless jump buttons in most games. If I come to a wall that is waist high, I want to be able to just hop over, not go searching for the gate.

So maybe it's because I'm weary of the WW2 setting, or don't find the squad management as good as Ghost Recon or fun as Freedom Fighters, but this game just didn't really do it for me.

[triggercut]

I've put in about 4 hours into the single player and I have to say I'm not that impressed. First, the friendly AI is pretty good, largely because they have been programmed precisely for the geometry of the individual levels, which is understandable from a programmatic perspective. But the levels are also constructed in a way that feels very artificial, with perfect cover every twenty feet or so -- a pile of logs here, and over-turned cart there, and often a very convenient dirt mound. The whole thing feels like playing in a long, narrow paintball world with a WW2 skin. It just didn't click with me.

However, the opposing AI is merely adequate in most coses and downright bad in many others. They can tell when you are flanking them, and smartly turn to face the immediate threat, but if you go back into hiding they eventually forget you were even there, letting you pick them off with leisure (you'll have to use the down-the-sites mechanism as there is no crosshairs in the game). Also, their reaction to grenades is very, very sluggish. I threw a grenade into a barracks of soldiers sitting at a table and they didn't even budge until the grenade went off, killing them all. Likewise, scenarios where you have to man a fixed MG sees the Germans pretty much running directly at you, while you just sit there and hold down the right trigger. Maybe these Ostbrigade guys really were gun fodder, but they either didn't have grenades in the war and hence not in this game, or they didn't bother to program in grenade use for enemy AI. Oh, and I played on Normal setting, so maybe if I were to up the difficulty they AI might make smarter choices.

Finally, I don't like games, especially action games, where I feel restricted in my movement. Any paratrooper dropping behind lines would be able to hop over a four foot wall, and at least climb something around 6 feet. It's probably not a big deal to most people, but I hate useless jump buttons in most games. If I come to a wall that is waist high, I want to be able to just hop over, not go searching for the gate.

...and then you get past the third chapter or so (which is still kind of introducing game concepts to you like a tutorial with obvious fixed positions and cover everywhere) and the game opens up. Decent-sized maps with objectives that have all sorts of ways to accomplish them. Regular and elite German infantry and paratroops with those nasty scoped rifles. German troops who flank you and fall back to new positions when flanked themselves in those later scenarios.

It's been my observation in the later chapters that if you try to hold a fixed position, you'll get killed fairly easily by the AI. They'll put a heavy base of fire on you and come from flanks, buildings, what-have-you. They won't frontally assault you by any means. The key to winning is to play like someone in the 101st in France: you move, forward, at all times.

It's a fantastic game.

[Mattc0m]

How many people can you fit into a game? I understand its about you controlling a squad, but is it only 1v1? Or is this 2v2s+?

Also, I was under the impression the AI was pretty good. However, this was from previews only and sometimes they can be less than accurate.

[Angie Gallant]

Multiplayer does up to 2 vs 2, which each player leading a team.

[triggercut]

How many people can you fit into a game? I understand its about you controlling a squad, but is it only 1v1? Or is this 2v2s+?

Also, I was under the impression the AI was pretty good. However, this was from previews only and sometimes they can be less than accurate.

Not sure, because I haven't played on Live, on your first question. Prolly won't do mp here until I can do it in the PC version.

The AI is very, very good. First of all, here's a basic illustration: let's say you've got two jerries behind a wall, shooting at you. You've found some cover behind the corner of a building, and are returning fire. The Germans don't just sit out there with part of their body exposed, so that a good tight shot can take one of them out. That's a given, though. Lots of other shooters had smarter AI than that. So yeah, it's cool that the bad guys duck back behind the wall in full (if suppressed) cover to reload, etc. But what they do here that they don't do in a lot of other shooters is that when they pop back up to return fire, they do so in different locations. In other words, the tired old tactic of just siting in a small area where the badguy was before he ducked back into cover to reload and waiting for him to come right back out into that very same area (and hence, right into your rifle sight) doesn't work.

The AI will see you flanking them, and they'll try to pull back. I was leading a flanking assault on a fixed position against a half-dozen Germans my fire team had pinned down, when the Germans noticed us flanking (someone yelled "Die Flanken! Die Flanken!" or something like that). In turn, the Germans layed down suppressing fire on our flankers while 3 of them pulled back to a new position, and then the three guys they had suppressing made a mad run for that new position while the guys in that new cover laid down fire to cover them. You see stuff like that all the time in the game, and it's very cool.

Once you get past the first 3 chapters or so, the game opens up very, very nicely. You realize that those first three chapters were on rails, and they were tutorials. The game really makes you think like a squad leader from that point on, figuring out different approaches, adapting to different enemy response tactics. There have been a couple of chapters in the mid-to-late game I've replayed a couple of times (just because they're cool, and because I wanted to see if I could improve my results) that played out totally differently based on tactics I used, and also (and this seems key) because the Germans responded differently to similar tactics.

Beating the game lets you unlock "realistic" mode. Even on the hardest initial difficulty, you can take a few individual rifle shots without dying (although a grenade or burst of machinegun fire will take you out instantly). From what I understand (haven't finished yet), "realistic" mode is Rainbow 6-ish, one shot one kill style. Can't wait to play that!

[Tom Chick]

Decent-sized maps with objectives that have all sorts of ways to accomplish them. Regular and elite German infantry and paratroops with those nasty scoped rifles. German troops who flank you and fall back to new positions when flanked themselves in those later scenarios.

Triggercut, when exactly does this happen?

Me and Supertanker got to the level where you have to take the town (it's called, I dunno, somethingville and is the sixth mission or so) and although I suppose the maps are big, the game still shunts you through very specific ways through each firefight. It's like a version of Full Spectrum Warrrior with hard-coded solutions for each encounter.

Overall, my impression is very much in line with Jim's, but if it does change as you play farther, as triggercut says, I'm willing to stick it out.

-Tom

[Jim Preston]

I've played through half the game now, and I still can't say that I'm seeing the "very, very good" AI that triggercut speaks of. Mostly, each of my missions play out the same way: I tell my squad to lay down covering fire, and I flank, and either throw a grenade and end it immediately or I gun them down; or the other scenario is when I flank the enemy and begin to draw fire, I use both triggers to call for an all-out assult which also tends to end things immediately.

In the scenario where you have to clear the field of poles for the gliders, i simply had my guys move from truck to cart to truck laying down cover fire while I calmly went from pole to pole blowing them up. I was hit a couple of times but never even got near red in my injury meter. It was a pretty uneventful level that didn't impress me.

Perhaps the upgrade to "realistic" difficulty will change things, but I don't think an experience on "Normal" should be this straightforward and, well, routine. I'll keep plugging away in hopes of getting to that fantastic experience triggercut is having, but I'm apparently not there yet.

[triggercut]

Having replayed a few chapters on harder difficulties, I guess I am seeing some ai clearly scripted for the map, although I think I also have found a few variants here and there. I'm also still saying that there are multiple approaches to the missions....but the general means of taking out the objectives is definitely the same throughout.

Hmmm. I guess on reflection I'd say that my initial enthusiasm is probably overstates the game's abilities somewhat, but that it isn't the strictly rails-only shooter that I've seen in other WWII titles in this genre.

[Tom Chick]

I'm also still saying that there are multiple approaches to the missions....but the general means of taking out the objectives is definitely the same throughout.

I don't mean to put you on the spot, but can you give examples?

Because if this is the case, I'm curious to continue with the game. But so far, it seems to me that there's no leeway in how you get from point A to point B on any given level. It seems like every encounter is pretty much set up with a few places for someone to lay down suppressing fire and a right and/or left flanking path that really feels hard-coded.

I like the approach, and as with Full Spectrum Warrior, I'm pleased to see a game with guns treated as something other than a shooting gallery. But so far Brothers in Arms feels like a disappointingly rigid proof of concept.

-Tom

[Supertanker]

Me and Supertanker got to the level where you have to take the town (it's called, I dunno, somethingville and is the sixth mission or so) and although I suppose the maps are big, the game still shunts you through very specific ways through each firefight. It's like a version of Full Spectrum Warrrior with hard-coded solutions for each encounter.

We got all the way to where you secure the church and take out the mortar teams, wherever that is in the game. Six missions sounds about right. Overall, I was disappointed, mostly because I was expecting a much more flexible battle.

There is only a need to flank when facing a machinegun, and the path for doing so is painfully obvious. ("Hint: Try flanking the machinegun, but watch out for the squad of Jerries we put on the critical path that leads there.") If you are patient enough, crouch and plink at the enemies' heads for a while. That's a perfectly fine and safe way to progress through the levels unless facing an MG position.

I was messing around in various ways to see how the AI would react. I did like that the suppressing fire would distract them and let me sneak up for the melee kill. There was an instance where I had to man a machinegun, and the AI was completely idiotic, charging into the line of fire. I missed seeing one soldier as he ran up the road, and he did manage to come up on my flank and start shooting. He was about 15 feet away, I kept looking much farther down the road, and he took about 20 shots to kill me. When taking out the second mortar crew, I walked right up behind them and watched them fire three rounds before they noticed me.

I'm happy to see suppressive fire modeled in some fashion, but the game's a one-trick pony because of that. All of the tactical puzzles are solved by suppressing. You don't get smoke, or artillery support, or scoped rifles, or even many grenades. Suppressive fire turns an idiot into Audie Murphy. I tried running out into the same open areas with and without suppressive support. Without it, I was immediately gunned down. With it, I could run straight toward the enemy positions and shoot them in the face.

I don't know what difficulty level we were on, but hit location didn't seem to matter much. Most soldiers seemed to take two hits to the head or three to the body to go down. Wounds did not appear to have any partial effect, it was either nothing or death.

Knowing more what to expect, and being a complete sucker for WWII FPS games, I'll probably pick up the PC version. I'd like to toy with it more, and I'd like to try it with the mouse/keyboard. If you are looking for a squad-based military console game, try Ghost Recon 2 instead. I just finished that, and feel it is superior in most ways - including the ease of ordering your squad to lay down suppressive fire.

[Matthew Gallant]

You do get scoped rifles on some missions.

[Geo]

I got the PC version today. I'm really enjoying it. It looks fine, though some textures seem a tad blurry. AFIK, they never talked mucha bout what engine they used, but the opening splash screen says Unreal. If that's old news, so sue me. :P

The squad controls are introduced gradually and I'm finding them easy and fun to use. For a change, taking out an MG-42 position is a real strategic challenge; and manning a gun is more than a shooting gallery (since you still need to ask your guys to do the final assault).

Fortunately I didn't have any problems with my DVD drive installing or playing, but it does seem bizarre for the label to all but say "this $50 game may not work on your drive but you'll just have to try it and see." :roll:

Although they're already planning an expansion, I wonder how much long term life this will have being as the EULA all but says "no mods, no unauthorized levels, nada," which seems bizarre for an Unreal engined game.

[Geo]

To fill you in on how PC controls works.

Switching between fire and suppression teams
-Use the '1' or '2' keys
-Use Shift key

Movement orders
-Right click/hold
-Move the blue icon where you want troops to go
-Let go

Suppressing orders
-Right click/hold
-Move the blue icon over a target, where you get the red crosshairs
-Let go

"Charge" orders
-Right click/hold
-Move the blue icon over a target, where you get rec crosshairs
-Left click

Other stuff
-Middle mouse button for iron sights (there is an option for crosshairs)
-Tab to switch weapons
-'V' key for situational awareness view (cursor and the FPS-style movement keys change the viewing angels and zoom)

This is all configurable.

If this sounds complicated, it's not. :) Works really really well and fast, and fun to use. If anyone has any other questions about PC version, fire away. 8)

[Geo]

Here are some character model screenies from PC version. I'm running Radeon 9800 Pro. I got most things turned up, but AA at 4X instead of 6X so some jagginess present maybe. :oops:

[flyinj]

Well, I've played through the Xbox version one time and got halfway through the second when the PC version came out.

All I have to say is, if you have a PC, get that version! WASD mouse control makes all the difference.

Plus, the bloom and lighting effects seemed much nicer. And the added resolution.

My only problem with the PC version is it doesn't seem like they upped the texture resolution by much.

Oh, and loadtimes are non-existant...

I imagine multiplayer on the PC is going to be far more enjoyable as well.

It just goes to show the quality of this game that I bought it on *two* platforms and have no problem with doing so. Well, other than the fact that I couldn't wait the extra three weeks for the PC version to come out... but I'm still having a blast with it.

I REALLY hope we see some great user-created missions for this. The potential is there to make some amazing content. That's the main reason I got the PC version.

[Kalle]

This game was a big "meh" for me. The squad control wasn't enough, I feel like I've already played this game, and it was called Medal of honor/Call of Duty. And the firefights in the game were basically trench combat at 10 metres range. You'd take potshots at an enemy hiding behind a wooden fence while you yourself was taking cover behind a dense piece of shrubbery, and no bullets would penetrate. You'd tell your fireteam to suppress, because unlike you they have unlimited ammo, and you'd handle flanking manoevres alone. Not exactly what I see a squad leader doing. I haven't gotten a second squad yet, so maybe that part of the game will improve, but I don't feel like it's worth finding out.

I'm 1/3 way through the game and the game has completely lost me at this point.

[BaconTastesGood]

I tried running out into the same open areas with and without suppressive support. Without it, I was immediately gunned down. With it, I could run straight toward the enemy positions and shoot them in the face.

Unfortunately this is basically what real squad combat is like. You don't generally run out into the open looking for targets, infantry training is basically about "take cover, suppress, and advance". Fire & Maneuver is the name of the game. Enfilade, outflank, yadda yadda.

Since it sounds GB wanted some realism, this is what you get, a la FSW. FSW was also a one trick pony -- every puzzle was basically "How do I get my heavily armed, well trained squad of 8 soldiers to outflank and kill some dirty, knife-wielding terrorist hiding behind a barrel?"

[Xaroc]

I am 25% in and this game is far and away better than Call of Duty and it's Hogan's Alley ship level or MoH and the abomination that is snipertown. The only complaint I have so far is the load times are god awful. I can't imagine how bad they are on the Xbox if they are this bad on the PC.

-- Xaroc

[flyinj]

that's really odd that people are complaining of loadtimes. Mine loads EXTREMELY fast. And on a 1 gig RAM 2.5 ghz winXP box to boot.

Silent Hunter 3, on the other hand... whew... that game takes 30-60 seconds to load to title and 2-3 minutes to load into a career mission.

[Geo]

Don't forget you can send your own guys on an "all out assault," (charge?) which will work out if you yourself can keep them suppressed enough. I did this when I was manning a .30 caliber emplacement. It was nice (for a change) that it didn't become a shooting gallery totally -- with the last three krauts I kept them suppressed and ordered my squaddies to charge the positions.

I do think the missions themselves, though based on actual events, feel too much like playing CoD/MOHAA all over again. Granted this has been in development for years, and the 101st Airborne is seminal WW2 stuff, and doing things with squad maneuvers is refreshing (well for me, obviously not for everybody :P); but it mighta been nice to do some missions that haven't been done to death in other games.

I guess someone should mention that "MX" versions of NVIDIA cards are NOT supported. Frankly, between that and many DVD/RW drives not working with the copy protection, that probably should've been festooned on even pre-order boxes with huge red stickers (it's spelled out on the tiny sys requirements stickers). I don't quite understand why an Unreal-engined game should be so picky in terms of system requirements.

I don't know how much long term play this will have, because the EULA all but rules out people ever making their own levels for the game (no "unauthorized" levels are allowed), which seems bizarre for an Unreal engined game.

[Geo]

Don't forget you can send your own guys on an "all out assault," (charge?) which will work out if you yourself can keep them suppressed enough. I did this when I was manning a .30 caliber emplacement. It was nice (for a change) that it didn't become a shooting gallery totally -- with the last three krauts I kept them suppressed and ordered my squaddies to charge the positions.

I do think the missions themselves, though based on actual events, feel too much like playing CoD/MOHAA all over again. Granted this has been in development for years, and the 101st Airborne is seminal WW2 stuff, and doing things with squad maneuvers is refreshing (well for me, obviously not for everybody :P); but it mighta been nice to do some missions that haven't been done to death in other games.

I guess someone should mention that "MX" versions of NVIDIA cards are NOT supported. Frankly, between that and many DVD/RW drives not working with the copy protection, that probably should've been festooned on even pre-order boxes with huge red stickers (it's spelled out on the tiny sys requirements stickers). I don't quite understand why an Unreal-engined game should be so picky in terms of system requirements.

I don't know how much long term play this will have, because the EULA all but rules out people ever making their own levels for the game (no "unauthorized" levels are allowed), which seems bizarre for an Unreal engined game.

[Geo]

Gamespy has a review that seems pretty fair about its merits and faults, though he forgot to mention you Can have crosshairs as an option; and all the various DVD incompatibilities and incompatibility with "MX" GeForce model cards.

Gamespy review
http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/brothers-in-arms/597468p1.html

All these WW2 shooter types (MOHAA, CoD, this) seem to be way too short for $49.99 games (esp. in this case with apparently no user-creted levels allowed). Maybe they should take a lesson from the godawfully long Soldier of Fortune 2, which has my vote as longest military shooter eve. I was kind of sick of that by the end. :P

[Xaroc]

that's really odd that people are complaining of loadtimes. Mine loads EXTREMELY fast. And on a 1 gig RAM 2.5 ghz winXP box to boot.

Silent Hunter 3, on the other hand... whew... that game takes 30-60 seconds to load to title and 2-3 minutes to load into a career mission.

Yeah, it is not my hardware apparently according to this post you need to turn off vsync to get it to load quickly. Of course the drivers I am running right now are not playing nice and won't turn it off. Plus even if I do turn off vsync I tend to get tearing because I am on an LCD. I may swap drivers and see what that does.

-- Xaroc

[sluggo]

Well, I feel a little dumb about missing the crosshair option. :roll: I added an editor's note to that section pointing out the mistake.

I really, really liked what Gearbox did with BiA. They've stumbled on something interesting with the squad based stuff, although it takes a little while to open up. The controls are simple, and the checkpoint placement is exactly what it needs to be. Unlike a lot of games, the later missions are interesting, and not so outlandishly difficult that they push you away. There were a few simple things that could have been improved (the invisible walls, for instance), but it's one of the few games I want to go back and keep playing through all the difficulty settings.

I've got mixed feelings on the length. Generally, I would prefer an 8 hour game that I enjoy from start to finish, instead of a 15 hour game where half the missions are uninspired filler. I think BiA qualifies as the former, but I do wish there had been one more final mission to tie things up properly ... the end was a little anticlimactic for me.