Recent reviews by George Costanza

There is a fun gameplay loop but outside of that it's basically an unfinished game. There is still regular random crashing and bugs. These bugs are sometimes game-breaking. Doesn't matter if you update your drivers or follow any number of recommendations, it's just broken.

The galactic war idea is somewhat novel but its just that, a novelty. Beyond getting you some extra credits, it's directionless and has no real consequences. The only people who have any fun with it are LARPers.

It's nice of the developers that the game is not P2W but it's not even play to win either. I've unlocked and tried most of what there is on offer and there is very little specialisation worth investing in. Mission variety gets old after about 10 hours. The 'regular' updates are just paltry sprinkles of more useless guns and armour, the only time they release more unlocks they're not really worth the effort either.

The games hardest difficulty should really be it's 'normal' difficulty. Especially on bugs its laughably easy. Game is already dying and will be dead before the year is out if the Devs dont change their strategy.

Devs, this is not a 1.0 release. Your game is totally unfinished. Well done, it was a good update, but it's nowhere near enough. Everything is still unpolished. You can't justify adding $20 to the price when all you did was improve your AI and some of your functionality. Everything else in this update is largely inconsequential to actual gameplay. Furthermore, many of your new features are already bugged anyway. In many ways this is still the same old stilted and awkward game. This is a lot more like an alpha to beta release.

The review will change to positive when the game is actually finished.

Genuinely good game. Captures the feel of the previous titles perfectly. Not for everyone, but if you enjoyed previous AC games you need to play this as well. Soundtrack and Gameplay are it's strongest suit. Story is good but falls slightly short of AC 4 and 5.

Upon the completion of the final installment in Gearbox Software’s acclaimed trilogy, I have quite a lot to say. Not a lot of it is good. Brothers in Arms: Hell’s Highway was released on PC on October 8th, 2008, and takes the protagonists of the previous games (who for review purposes I will now name) Matt Baker and Joseph ‘Red’ Hartsock directly into Operation Market Garden, the ambitious offensive planned by the foolhardy General Montgomery to bridge a path along the Netherlands and forge a direct line straight into the German heartland past the Rhine river. Be aware that I did my first and only run-through of this game on the hardest possible difficulty, with an additional difficulty being unlocked at the end of my play.

Brothers in Arms: Hell’s Highway has clearly sought to elevate the Brothers in Arms foundations established in the two previous games to new heights, taking every aspect of what made up the series and presenting it on a new scale both functionally and visually. However, immensely serious changes in gameplay dynamic make the game abundantly easy even on the games hardest first time difficulty, with other functional changes impacting the way the game is played as well. Visually, the game is quite amazing at most points, Gearbox Software employs the Unreal Engine 3 to great effect, creating what is by far one of the greatest looking World War 2 action games I have played to date. But all this is hampered by a weakness in what Brothers in Arms prides itself most in: Plot. It’s these three areas that largely define what Hell’s Highway is, that is, a very different game from its predecessors. For better or (much) worse.

What I actually liked about the game, aside from the graphical enhancements:

• The use of Cut-scenes far more often, with superb animation compared to the series standard, really helps the game achieve it’s initial intention of being a cinematic war movie homage, alike to Band of Brothers. They also make Brothers in Arms’ trademark employment of recurring and developing characters much easier to keep track of, something sorely missing from the previous games which lead to a lack of connection with the plot.
  
  
• The addition of a cover system, including destructible cover at regular intervals, is a welcome inclusion. The functionality of the system never gave me any issues throughout the entire game and generally made command and control a bit smoother. Vaulting too, this was an addition that made too much sense not to include I presume.
  
  
• Inclusion of more friendly NPCs is a great plus. Just being able to see realistic military conditions around you, with other soldiers operating along the battlefield really helps remove the feeling of emptiness that plagued the previous games. Further effects like planes and paratroopers in the sky greatly added to this as well.
  
  
• Voice acting and editing has been greatly improved with this title. Conversations between characters are for the larger part much smoother, crisper and well cut this time around, once again helping with plot development. Characters are also a lot more responsive and verbally active in combat now as well.
  
  
• For the larger part of this review, I am going to speaking rather negatively about the games combat functionality and changes, so here is what I appreciated the developers doing: A greater variation of fire-teams with different weapons and abilities really helped shake up gameplay at points and Hell’s Highway’s Combat Map is a marked improvement from the situational overview screen from the previous two games. The ability to command three fire teams by the end of the game was a great choice, but really could have been implemented throughout the whole game in my opinion.

That just about covers the praises I have for this game beyond by next paragraph. I’ve saved the graphical enhancements for last as they are the most profound improvement featured in Hell’s Highway. Almost 10 years on, and the game still looks great. The characters, combat areas and weapons are all beautifully textured, with generally consistent good animation to boot. It’s really gives a remarkable addition to the game, awarding me a shred of disbelief suspension despite all the crappy aspects about this game that are to follow. Unfortunately, as it’s well acknowledged to this day, graphical improvements are not a redeemer of poor game design.

The most glaring terrible issue with Brothers in Arms: Hell’s Highway is its gameplay changes. It simply makes small but high impact choices across the whole game and certain missions that degrade the entire experience to a shadow of the previous two games. Accuracy in the game has been raised on all weapons, leading to a situation where 90% of the time, commanding your squad effectively or using small infantry tactics is completely unnecessary and quite often less effective than simply going ‘Call of Duty’ style and picking off hostiles at range with rifle or machine gun fire. This is compounded by the fact that by default, you’re given almost four times the ammo as you were in previous games, for all weapons, with complete resupplies made available at many points in the mission. Now while in Earned in Blood you could acquire ammo from your squad mates, this function became more difficult to use under fire when 6 sub-machine gun magazines could be expended in a matter of minutes, where any hostiles represented a much greater threat. The combination of these gameplay changes leads to the entire game being painfully easy for almost its entire run time.

The final large scale issue I had with this game was the plot. Now I’m going to not enter spoiler territory and give away any plot points, but some of the things I’m going to say will only make sense after you’ve played. It’s clear that as part of their delivering a much more up-gunned experience to top off their series, they chose to bring the plot to new heights as well. Evidently dangerous heights. Essentially, the story is delivered much more dramatic and focused than ever before, in no small part due to the improved voice acting, animations and cut-scenes. But where this all goes, ultimately falls short. A vast majority of the time, the conflict between characters and the emotional trials of the characters, primarily Matt Baker, are extremely forced. By and large, and this is difficult to back up without spoilers, the game lacks subtlety. It tried to present itself as a heightened cinematic experience, but doesn’t really bring any of the story-writing skill that one always expects even with poorly made war movies. Instead, at most points, the plot is delivered in an extremely predictable and ham-fisted way, much like the plots of many action games. But where other games can be forgiven as the plot usually serves only to advance gameplay, Hell’s Highway’s plot is very clearly central to both the core of the game and the gameplay itself, with much of it being directly attached to the plot, far more than the previous two games. I honestly felt disconnected from the plot, and would have made many changes to improve it given the chance. My lack of connection was repaired for one small moment near the end of the game, but only for a moment, and it only served to remind me what the game was sorely missing. Either way, leaves a lot to be desired.

In summary, Brothers in Arms: Hell’s Highway is not the game this series deserved as its sendoff, even if they put a ‘to be continued’ on the end of the game, we all know there won’t likely be a fourth game. I played the game to its conclusion for the sake of review, but otherwise it is sorely not worth the time if one is looking for an enjoyable experience akin to the original two Brothers in Arms games. Gets a 5/10 from me.

Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood - Gearbox Software

This review follows my review of Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30, which you can view on my profile. It also accompanies my review of Max Hastings’ Overlord, coming very soon on Goodreads and my Review site. Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood is everything a sequel should be and more. Despite this it still presents some disappointments in key areas. While it still learns quite a lot of lessons from its predecessor, I will seek to outline where they could have done better. Don’t let that note dismay however, I believe that Earned in Blood is a title very worthy of inheriting the mantle of the franchise. Without spoiling story content, the plot follows a friend and team member of the main character from Road to Hill 30, and likewise follows his story as the Battle for Normandy rages on around him. The game runs on the same engine as Road to Hill 30, and runs very much functionally the same. The game admittedly offers few feature improvements or innovations over its predecessor, but I don’t necessarily see this as a negative. Road to Hill 30 lacked any glaring issues with gameplay, and was developed in a formula that didn’t necessarily demand improvement. Basically, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. So with that being said, where does this games strengths lie? What are the new things that it does bring to the table? And what, if ever, holds it back? Read on.

Earned in Blood places the player in the same formula as they’ll largely be used to: Small scale infantry combat with small arms, involving the signature trademarks of suppressing fire and flanking that are essential to progress, especially as I once again take on this iteration of the series on the hardest first time difficulty. But throughout the game, signs can be seen of subtle but grateful improvements. AI is more responsive, more weapons add a greater diversity to the game with a handful more of different opponents to face and new ways of handling tough situations each presenting themselves as welcome but not game-changing, the perfect kind of addition to a formula that works just fine in its inception. Throughout the entire game, very little functional additions are brought in aside from this. As a reviewer it pains me to wonder if anything more could have been successfully included, especially considering the development standards of the time. The only issue is it leaves me with painfully little to write on for the large duration of this review. The core strengths of Road to Hill 30 remain, without nothing lost during the development process for the sequel. With its few additions and changes in engine structure, it is unsurprising that this title was released only a little over half a year after Road to Hill 30. I think a larger level of new features and engine updates would have perhaps served the game well, but that cannot be known. It’s current state, however, is commendable enough. A final point on this game’s strengths, its final mission. The environmental design and scale of the mission places itself well ahead of anything thus experienced across either of the two games. I found that, without spoiling its content, it provided a fitting set piece to end the series’ foray into Normandy.

Now, the game’s shortcomings. Earned in Blood makes no attempts to improve the older system’s small flaws. I encountered the same issue of my soldiers ending up distinctly where I did not want them to be. The game also has the same issues with scale as Road to Hill 30, which can be seen in my previous review. Since the list of issues I had with Road to Hill 30 were relatively small, it’s not a huge issue that they have been addressed so little. It simply leaves Earned in Blood in the same place as the previous game.

This review is shorter than the one for Road to Hill 30. Almost everything I put forward in that review applies to this game as well. Whether this is good or bad is effectively up to the player. People who took up more issues with Road to Hill 30 than me will lament at how little has changed in this sequel, and people who loved the game more than me will rejoice in receiving the same, no more, no less. For me, I am indifferent, so I’m happy giving Earned in Blood the same rating as I gave the previous game, an 8/10.

Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30 - Gearbox Software

This review, and the review of it’s sequel, Earned in Blood, are written in lieu of finishing Max Hastings’ Historical Piece Overlord, which gave me advanced insights on top of my existing knowledge regarding the combat during the Battle for Normandy. The first Brothers in Arms title, Road to Hill 30, I finished earlier, in early January, and I timed my playtime of Earned in Blood to coincide with finishing Overlord. For now, we focus on the first game. Road to Hill 30 was released for Windows on the 15th of March 2005. Critics received it well, and for me, well I think it’s a great title. Road to Hill 30 has all makeup of a classic World War 2 First-Person Shooter, even now it makes itself remarkable at every turn, even more impressive considering it was made at a time where the market was increasingly flooded. The way Road to Hill 30 sets itself apart from its era and even today’s shooter market lays in its design. The AI, weapon mechanics, difficulty, suppression system and squad management all play an impressive part in creative a cohesive and challenging experience that neither feels too painstaking or overly lax on the player. That’s not to say the game is perfect, it manages to bring with it some flaws along the way. All the above, I’ll further explore bellow.

Coming into the game, as most older games do, Road to Hill 30 inevitably shows its age. The facial animation and textures are laughable at points, but this is merely a first impression, and not exactly something you can fault a game from 2005, a time where advanced and emotional facial animations at all were a revolutionary concept, so at least they gave it a good crack. Without giving spoilers to the story, the game starts you at the very end of the story, with a not unexpected cliffhanger. A not unique way of setting the plot forward, but it does take the chance to establish the fact that Road to Hill 30′s characterization will become a trademark of its story. This is an important point I’ll hammer on down the line. But the game does contain all the aspects of a professionally made title. The tutorial explains all the player needs to know to understand the game properly, and doesn’t drag on too long, something that’s left to be desired in even some modern titles. But it would be difficulty for me to touch on the deeper elements of mission content without spoiling the story, so I will provide one comment. Gearbox Software’s mission design is exceptionally well researched and considered. Each mission, for the most part, functionally feels great and flows without error. To experience it, simply requires putting in the time in to what is a remarkable challenging game, which will be the focus of my next point.

Challenge is a core concept in most video games. By and large, almost every video game you play will have challenge on some level, bar exceptions like Visual Novels. It’s still a complicated concept that some games don’t get right even in AAA titles today. Some games can be ridiculously easy or hard to the point that it hurts their playability and reduces the overall quality of the game. Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30 is one of the minority of games that gets it just right, on simply all levels. An amazing mix of level design, enemy AI/direction/placement, weapon balancing and reward really make Road to Hill 30 an incredibly challenging but fulfilling experience. Now I should preface by saying my runthrough was done on the hardest possible difficulty (a further difficulty is unlocked upon playthrough), so read my words with that factor in mind. The games levels are designed progressively, with the player passing through area to area seamlessly, with no loading times bar between full missions. This asset handling alone to allow for no mid-mission loading screens is impressive for a game from 2005, which I could have just as easily seen using a loading time between each battle segment. Another sign of a challenge being posed to the player is no regenerating health, but beyond that, no health kits either. Regenerating health was only fully popularized with the release of Call of Duty 2 later in October 2005, but health packs were still a commonplace concept in games for a decade. Through this choice, Gearbox Software leaves the player with one health bar and one health bar only, with whatever health you had at the last checkpoint remaining that way. Not to mention, in true fashion, checkpoints are only placed sparingly in each mission. But what takes the cake in truly establishing the game as a challenging but fulfilling experience is the enemy and weapon design, and the ultimate end they go for with those two elements.

Firstly, the enemies in Road to Hill 30 are clearly designed in principle with more care than your average video game hostile. The developers go to the grateful step of differentiating the forces you face, Fallschirmjäger, Waffen-SS, Wehrmacht are all included and differentiated between, giving a new level of authenticity to an already well researched game. Along with a great level of historical attention to detail, the enemy in combat performs to a great standard due to the developer Gearbox Software’s great use of both standard AI but also their with their large scale use of what I’ll dub ‘directed’ AI. At predetermined points, when the player character and/or his squad begin to encroach on an enemy position, often the enemy in question will actively move to a further back defensive position, or elicit some other action that would be far beyond a standard FPS AI. Far too often, throughout even modern First-Person Shooters, I see completely rigid AI, capable of only the most rudimentary concepts of attack and defense. Now, there are some great examples of fully independent and well working FPS AI, but they are vastly outnumbered due to the level of time they consume in programming compared to leaving them at a standard comparable to most other FPS games. The developers of Road to Hill 30 did not include an amazing AI for their combat enemies, as a matter of a fact, it is sub-par when isolated and unsupported. But their competent use of ‘directing’ the AI at key points in response to player actions give them an edge above the average FPS player. Now these movements are pre-programmed, so upon dying and re-loading, the AI will almost always make the same move to the same predetermined points, making this a function a player can actually use to his advantage if he/she has their wits about them. Overall, the smart combination of AI and developer-guided combat movements make the hostiles in Road to Hill 30 a tougher opponent than your average, especially on harder difficulties when they can drop the player in a few short shots. This AI system works best because it’s supported by another key element: Weapon design.

In Road to Hill 30, the weapons are designed with a different set of attributes to games that have come before and after it. On average, rifles like the M1 Garand, M3 Carbine and Kar98k sway far more than in games like Medal of Honor and Call of Duty, and hitting a target at more than 20m requires supreme patience and continuous fire. Submachine guns like the Thompson and MP40, and very well larger machine guns like Browning Auto Rifle are wildly inaccurate at range unless held carefully and while being exposed to much more accurate enemy fire. Especially on harder difficulties, enemies can dish out pretty much the same if not more volume of fire you can, and on authentic difficulty they will deal effectively the same damage. While I’m not sure about the historical implications of such game design, the principles implemented with such ideas plays in well to what Gearbox Software had in mind with how the player should approach the missions contained in the game.

Read the rest here[aristotlesreviews.wordpress.com], Steam has a rather irritating word limit.

A fun game, althought not as complicated as it looks once you get into it. Functions as a asymetrical turn based version of Wargame European Escallation, also operating on a similar scale as well.

Unfortunatley the AI becomes quite stale after a short while so this game is best bought for you and a friend. Otherwise, it has a few unique concepts, and an asymetrical order system is cool, but once again the concept doesn't bear its full use until you play the game against a human oponent.

Essentially this game is well made and stable, but the campaigns are lacklusters, with the most fun coming from the numerous other missions. Could greatley benefit from a larger scale strategic mode, mirroring games like the Total War or Wargame series.

This is a very good game. In confidence I can say that this is by far the most realistic simulation of modern combat, while also combining it with fun gameplay.

If you enjoy simluations as well as World War 2 combat, this game is certainly a no brainer to buy.

From me it gets a 9/10, great value for money and generally smooth gameplay to boot.

REVIEW FOR 'WIN' CAMPAIGN EPISODE

This Campaign Episode was unfortunatly shorter than the rest, I finished it in 3 Hours and 24 Minutes. While throughout the short time you are presented with Interesting Scenarios and Action Sequences, These are overshadowed by Short Length and a Lackluster Ending. I guess we're waiting for ArmA 4 to continue this story.

+ Action Packed and Well Acted and Scripted
+ Update has Improved and Added Features
- Unacceptably short length
- Lackluster Ending

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

YOU KNOW HOW ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ LONG I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR A GOOD VIETNAM GAME?
NO-ONE HAS MADE A GOOD VIETNAM GAME IN AGES. I WANT TO GO BACK. I WANT TO GO BACK TO NAM.
THIS GAME DIDN'T DO IT FOR ME AND NOT ONE HAS, I PRE-ORDERED IT AND EVERYTHING IN ANTICIPATION. SOMEONE MAKE A GOOD NAM GAME. ♥♥♥♥.