All in all, I like HH. The graphics, compared to the first two (PS2 vs PS3) are a big upgrade so I'm happy with it. The gameplay is great, the story is pretty good, and the sounds, audio, music, are all fine for me. I just love history, especially WWII, so I enjoy playing this kind of game and I still like playing by finding, fixing, flanking, and finishing. It gives it a bit of realism. I'm more of single player type so I don't care for multiplayer. The only thing that I could do without are the levels where Baker is a "lone wolf" where he has to go through a level by himself. I would much rather have a teammate fighting through those instances than by myself. Not sure why they (developers) did that. It took away from the 4 Fs. I guess I'm a purist and just like to have fire teams and assault teams with me or just like the level where Baker and Paddock (or was it Corrian) went through the church to get the sniper. Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth. Loved the game and I'm still playing, now on Authentic.

I wish I had have checked this forum or rented Hell's Highway before buying it. It's been collecting dust now for about a month and I come back here to see if it's been fixed yet...

To me this game is not Brothers In Arms, it's just Hell's Highway. I don't like associating it with those. It's completely different gameplay. It feels nothing like Brothers in Arms. Twenty-five percent first person. Why even bother having a button to look down the sights of the weapons. How many times do you use it? Two or three times the whole run of the game. Pretty much only when the Germans haven't seen you yet.

"War is Hell - Violent and Bloody" Sound familiar? What the hell were they thinking putting in a kill-cam?!

What a sell-out

anybody know how to fire the bazooka?

quote:

Originally posted by yesir:
anybody know how to fire the bazooka?

Same way you fire any other weapon.

I just beat this game last night, I enjoyed it but it could have been a lot better. The graphics are better than the first two games, but its not fully utilizing the newer hardware. However, if the game was more destructible, but it called for the graphics to look the same, I could live with that. Also, the stages from the demo were taken out as well as the prone position, which is integral in Army training doctrine, which is still how they train us to fire and how we qualify for the M16. The new cover system is good, but I noticed that when you give commands, SSG Baker's mouth does not move!? Also, the Germans in this game were not very aggressive, I don't recall them at all flanking you, I remember in the first two games when you could see the Germans flanking you and all you can do is curse at the game as you try to repell the attack. Also, the German tanks were weak!? According to this game, it only takes two bazooka shots on the side of a Panzer to destroy it?
I think Gearbox should remake the trilogy and make a definitive director's cut with updated graphics, physics, destructible environments. There are a lot of missions in the first two games that I would love to see recreated and updated.

quote:

I think Gearbox should remake the trilogy and make a definitive director's cut with updated graphics, physics, destructible environments. There are a lot of missions in the first two games that I would love to see recreated and updated.

I totally agree.
But with all that has been said, I'm very curious if the developers red these opinions and demands.

I doubt that they did, cause if they did I sure they would of commented.

Here's a list of things which disappointed me about the game:

- still no prone position
- inclusion of a cover system (not realistic, fluid stance system would have been much better)
- you still carry 2 primary weapons instead of just 1, grenades are still "off-hand" and you only get 3 of them (too much like Halo, not authentic enough)
- enemy AI still not smart enough to flank you, assault, or even throw grenades (it's not WWII infantry combat without grenades coming at you)
- no penetration system (rifle bullets should go through more stuff than SMG bullets)
- inclusion of silly unrealistic solo missions (which place emphasis on the cover system)
- friendly AI still not as good as it could be (if they are standing behind a wall and you order them to go somewhere further down on the wall, they will jump over the wall run out in the open exposing themselves to fire, instead of just going behind the wall the whole way)
- regenerating health made getting shot a non-issue, and suppression effects were inferior to previous games
- weapon mechanics still not perfect:

M1 Garand should deal same damage as K98 (1 chest shot kill) but with considerably more recoil; in-game it's currently too weak and too easy to rapid-fire as a result of low recoil. Should be more like the SVT 40 and G43 of Red Orchestra and function like a true battle rifle, not a semi-only assault rifle with a measly 8 round clip.

BAR should be more like a light machinegun; the heavy weight should slow you down and take longer to shoulder, but as a result it should have less recoil, and you should be able to deploy it with the bipod for optimal control. It currently handles in-game too much like an assault rifle or SMG.

Implementation of the MG-42 was silly. It should not have been operable from the shoulder or hip at all, and deploying it should not have depended on the cover system and crosshairs. Again, see Red Orchestra for the optimal way to handle WWII-era machineguns.

M1 Carbine was too inaccurate as a result of the lack of iron sight zoom compared to other long range weapons. As a result, it felt too much like a semi-automatic SMG (ie pretty useless) and not enough like an intermediate rifle. Would have been better to use the same zoom as the Garand and BAR, or make the IS zoom optional (ie you can toggle it on and off) for all weapons.

- no coop or split screen
- not enough use of "first person actor" system, it's pretty much restricted to mantling walls (why don't you fall to the ground when shot or blown up?)

All in all I enjoyed BIA and it did make considerable improvements in some areas, but I felt it was too much of a 'minor upgrade' from previous games and not enough of an evolution. I want to see BIA really break ground in the world of tactical/military shooters, not just do the same old. It's not enough to just have iron sights and a rudimentary command system anymore, every game has those. Why is it still missing basic stuff like prone position, single primary weapon inventory, enemy thrown and non-offhand grenades, weight and deployment of machineguns, etc? Why isn't it pushing advanced tactical features like AI, penetration systems, destructible environments, first-person actor, fluid stance, freelook, etc harder? I'd rather see BIA drawing more features from games like Red Orchestra and Armed Assault and fewer from Gears of War and Halo.

All I'm sayin is we need patches for the bugs in single and multiplayer and soon pls.

Yes, I totally agree with you marshman, it is not very hard at all. I rememer the last two brothers in arms to be acctually a lot harder than this one. Where a tank or 88 could acctually put you under a lot of pressure. I remember fining misself releaft after having beaten certain levels in the previous bia, but in this one it was really just a walk in the park.

quote:

Originally posted by marshman1970:
my take on the game .

1st off the obvious . 1 multiplayer mode 6 maps . The gameplay itself is not at all what I would call a "tactical shooter" where one must rely on squadmates to insure victory and/or survival. Many of the games I played simply ended when one team eliminated the other a la team deathmatch.
MP graphic oddities ... 1st of all it looks dated ,,,The animations quite jerky,,, maybe that's ok, but my teammates feet were often not touching the ground. They just hovered around the map ..Had to laugh . No Iron sites for the heavy Machine guns . The tanks, when hit would often spin like a top . It was hard to even know if you were in trouble ...you may see fire and you're in spectator mode just like that.Funnier still, the tank cannot move a little old jalopy out of the way .There's loads more, but why bother with that. On to SP . * MP tip * Try Red Orchestra.

Single player .
Looks dated , glitches ,etc , read those in the other complaint department .

I find it too easy . Why ? After easily getting through the 1st 5 levels (veteran difficulty) I realized why.

All you have to do is sit behind cover ...you may never die hmm....
... and...
There's been a good deal of talk about the AI . One thing I noticed is the Germans never put any pressure on you ! . Sure ,,, if you stand in the open or expose a squad you/they will get hit . But the germans have yet to give me the Ole "FFF&F" . They haven't even tossed a grenade my way ! . When they do have a tactical advantage ,they never exploit it! They just shift positions and then you play a simple game of " whack-a-kraut " they pop up. Bang .Dead. This is very apparent in the sniper/church mission where each german tucks neatly into his cubby hole waiting to get waxed. To make this somewhat fun try a Kar 98. I find myself often saying "Damn if they knew what they were doing ,my boys would be in real trouble" Sadly they don't .

I've actually gone to the kitchen and came back. My squad was still wailing away at the last german just standing there behind a hay bale. I put my snack down and with 1 shot the torture was over . For who I don't know.

The next level brings you a new set of the same hay bales ,low brick walls etc ...
The triggers are funny ,,, Often, the enemy won't do anything until you do. There hasn't been an "Oh my God , these guys are coming to fight and they ain't playin' " moment yet . Nope . They just line up and resign themselves to their fate . That's pretty much the game aside from the story . For me , there are far better stories on this very subject(Operation:Market Garden,101st Airborne, WWII ,etc.) in books.It's a little too "Hollywood" for me, although the squad members ragging on each other is pretty funny .And that in a nutshell is what I would say this game is...pretty funny .

So now I've had the chance to play Call of Duty:World At War.

I'm not going to talk graphics or authenticity, perhaps just overall feel...


The best thing about Call of Duty: World at War is that it's more like 'Brothers in Arms' than Hell's Highway.

I was really disapointed with this game as it promised so much more than it delivered.

For a start I was really anoyed how Bakers Squad seems to be the only Squad fighting the battles. Thats only a handful of men againts a fully trained german army, who (if i might add) find real pleasure in getting themselves shot!

During the tank missions i was disapointed to see german infantry running out infront of my machine gun fire and getting chewed to bits.

Also i was really put off by the huge ammount of sentamental crap they put into this game. Im half expecting baker to pull out a bayonet and start self harming. Band of Brothers got the emotions right but this is just over the top.

I went into this expecting a fairly accurate war game, simulating an actual battlefeild expirience. What i got was soppy supersquad action game just like Call of Duty and the rest of those unrealistic one man army games.

Im only on the 3rd mission (called Five something)and so far, im absolutly loving it. This is the first brothers in arms game I ever bought and and although i had some problems starting it in the beginning, it works well now and im having fun working my way thorugh the levels. I like the way isnt too hard and i dont have to keep moving my friends around, i can relax and do it more slowly and be more in conrol of whats going on. Maybe its just because im at the start of the game, but still, im really loving this game.

A new suggestion and then some comments others have made:

In lieu of the solo missions, I would rather see missions in which -- for whatever reason -- your character does not have a weapon so you must rely on ordering your two or three squads to take out the enemies. Not the whole game, just a few of the maps. Many of us like the FFF&F style and this weaponless situation would be very true to the BIA style.

Like others:
- the enemy should be more aggressive and try to flank you
- go back to the Tank as a squad option where the missions where to use your infantry squads to clear out the panzershreks while the tank provides cover and surpresses the MGs
- didn't like the solo missions


I think the 3rd person view for being dug in is OK. Since the game is all about ordering your squads around, this view allows that to happen. If it were only first person, I think it would be way too restrictive and the number one complaint here would be how useless it is. Perhaps future versions could include the ability to toggle 3rd person/1st person in the settings.

I really enjoyed the last levels of the game, fighting outside, with all three squads. I like BIA, I hope it continues.

The cut scenes before and after the tank levels are interesting because they make it sound like the level is supposed to be tackled with both infantry and tanks. The tank commander is saying things like having the squad help them out. That leads me to believe that they originally wanted to run the levels the traditional way (probably finished the cut scenes before the game) but it maybe didn't work out and we were left with solo tank levels.

I just finished this game today, and I have to say that I enjoyed this game very much. I have play the first two games and this game is a vast improvement over those two. Its not a perfect game (but then again thats not really possible is it) but it is much better in my opinion than the Call of Duty type WW2 games that are out there. This game is a step above its previous increments as well as other games. Here's why in my opinion:

=The Story.....Wow....that's all I can say. I enjoy the whole story so much.

=The suppression system in general makes the game more realistic and tactical than other WW2 games. The protracted firefights make me much more interested in playing. The cover system is welcome, but not perfect (more on that later). The desctructable cover is a great and welcome addition.

=The developers finally fixed the ability for you to actually hit what you aim at. In the previous titles it was ridiculous...emptying 10 shots at a guy who was 30 feet away and not hitting him got really old, really fast. This game fixed that, and I am glad cause that was my biggest gripe about the BiA series up to this point. THANK YOU GEARBOX FOR FIXING THIS!

=This game doesn't have the "target on your back" syndrome (well, it may but nowhere nearly as bad) that other shooters have...(I'm looking at you Call of Duty games) you know what I mean, where there are 7 other guys, but everyone is fixed on YOU, trying to kill YOU, even if you are behind cover and the other NPCs are just standing around firing ineffectively at the enemy. As for the new "red when about to die" feature. I enjoy it. Maybe its because I looked at it this way: You only get shot once maybe twice and then die. Its different than the overshield concept or whatever you wanna call it like on Call of Duty where you get shot 6 times by a chopper's gun and just crawl away into a corner to wait for the pain to go away or something. The BiA system (to me) represents the time it takes for the enemy to actually draw a bead on me and take me out. I think thats pretty darn realistic, rather than other games where everyone just turns and fires at you hitting you instantly....no sighting, no suprise...no realism if you ask me.

=Squad AI, while still not perfect is actually useful and needed to succeed. Your men are targets just like you, their deaths aren't part of a scripted event (unless its part of the story), they will hit the enemy when they shoot at them, and they will take cover.

There are other things I know, but I can't think of them right now. However, with all reviews, comes both sides of the coin. Here is what I noticed about this game that could be improved in the next installment:

=First off, I agree completely with most everyone else about the missions where Baker goes off on his own. I understand that it tries to get the player into the state of Baker's mentality, and this is understandable. However, it contradicts BiA foundations. I am all for character development and evolution, but if the amount of "lone wolf" (man, i hate that term) levels were more realistic in terms of approach and not Baker taking on 12 Germans without support, this issue probably wouldn't be brought up by all the players of this great game. I can definitely see a soldier taking on a small squad like a fire team or something by themselves with relative ease...but taking on an entire houseful of jerry without more than a few stops behind some walls to wait for the MG42 to stop firing at him in about 5 minutes is just a bit beyond belief.

=AI. This is where my biggest issue is. Even on authentic where death is much easier to be found for your teams, the AI was not a challenge on this game. I did not have a single grenade thrown my way. I did not have a single time where I was pressured by the 88s or the Panzers...i just waited and pulled the trigger...or made Jasper do it. This is just not good. I do agree that I felt more pressure from the tanks and 88s in the previous two titles. The AI needs to attack, not just stand there and try to defend and maybe sorta flank. This needs to be fixed. However, under no circumstances WHATSOEVER allow the enemy to bombard with grenades like on Call of Duty. With the destructable cover grenades are a good idea because it would make the player more active, but the enemy AI must have a limit on their grenades and not just use that as their only tactic. The suppression system must allow for the enemy to make more choices than to just poke their head over their cover like a prairie dog. They must be able to react actively.

The friendly AI must be improved too, mostly in path logic. The AI needs to be able to understand that there are better ways to get to an area of cover besides the straightest way. I can't count how many times Dawson's Assault Team would run out in front of the wall and hop over it rather than just go a few feet south and go through the opening thus avoiding the Nazis who were shooting at them. A lot of the cover logic has been improved (not as much standing in FRONT of the wall to catch the MP40 rounds in the stomach so the other two guys behind the wall wouldn't get hurt as in the previous two games), but its not perfect. This needs to be fixed. Another thing...I understand that Baker's unit is a "recon unit" but they later join up with other divisions and companies. I think that the AI should allow for other squads to be actively fighting along side of you and actually doing something besides fire in the direction of the enemy (I'm looking at you again Call of Duty) I think that having a main battlefront at the start of a mission, and then having the ability to take your squad to try and flank or break through would be great, but maybe I'm dreaming too much.

=Destructable cover must be more realistic in some areas. An 88's shell would take out a stone wall, so would a tank shell. Houses would go bye bye from both too. Company of Heroes utilizes this idea very well, and while it is a different kind of game their usage of a completely destructable environment gives it a sense of immersion not found in other WW2 games. Also, bullet penetration must be implemented, and not skimped on. It would add a lot to the destructable cover aspect. I like the new cover system. It gives the player more options and I love shooting around corners, but it must be fine tuned. The aiming must not be restricted to a...well...restricted view. It should be down the sights too. Other posters have brought up things that I won't repeat here.

=Weapon Stuff, Bullet Paths, and Other Notes...There are STILL times where a German firing an MG42 will have the barrel aimed left, but the bullets will do more twists and turns than the one that they try to say killed Kennedy and head right...right at me that is. Somehow the bullet will go a completely different direction which defies physics but belief as well. IT MUST BE FIXED! Also, I agree with an earlier poster that the gun recoil must be more accurate. I know that they are seasoned soldiers who are by now used to the weapons they fire for the most part, but that doesn't mean that the recoil won't be there. The guns sound so great, if they reacted more like they do in real life, it would be truly awesome. Another thing....NO MG42 HIP FIRING!! If it must be implemented, the character should not be able to lug it around so easily. The idea of a character carrying this around is too Medal of Honor...and yes Call of Duty: WaW too.

The grenade throwing feature needs to be tweaked to be more aimable...its a bit troublesome.

Being able to go prone, is just realistic. It could be incorporated to steady shots and such.

The tank missions weren't really my cup of tea either. They seemed out of place.



In closing, I do want to say again that I enjoyed this game very much. I think its the best WW2 shooter out there, and I think its the best of the series overall. It does have room for improvement, and I think if Gearbox listens to its players and adjusts and adds some things they will have a game of the year on their hands. I love the way the series has evolved, but I don't want it to turn into a WW2 era Gears of War or Rainbow Six Vegas type, and I definitely don't want to see it turn into another Call of Duty. I know it seems like I've been ripping on Call of Duty pretty hard, but I do enjoy it. I like the action, and the explosions are always pretty. But I know that war was more than assaulting beachheads and battles where the tide turned. There were losses and stalemates too. And I think the new Brothers in Arms reminds us of that.

quote:

I really was looking forward to playing the game on authentic mode. But this turned out to be a huge letdown. It's downright awkward to remove the crosshair (yes I know a crosshair isn't realistic, but hear me out) when firing from behind cover. Firing from cover is now reduced to blindfiring your weapon. Which is strange, because you'll see Baker aim down the sights while he's firing from behind cover. Since 'cover' is such an important part in the gameplay mechanic, it feels like the authentic mode got implemented without testing it first.

YES YES YES YES YES EXACTLY! Has this been fixed?

Like Epithy I to recently finished the game. First let me say I'm a huge console playing fan and don't play much on line, I find online play is for professionals not mere amatures, this is the best WWII game ever. It needs some work but it is a far better game than Call of Duty or Medal of Honor. I would like to see more intelligent AI, enemies that try to get your flank and team mates that don't rush out in the face of enemy fire. I think the ability to go prone would be helpful, the grenade throwing feature was a bit challenging, I'd also like to have few smoke grenades, and the tanks were kinda cool if you're into blowing things up but I could do without them. I wasn't much on the single Baker missions,the thing I love most about the game is the squad movements.
I figure we're headed to Belgium next, that would be historically acurate, but then what? I'd like to see the franchise head to the South Pacific, being a former Marine I feel we've been left out. Yes, Yes the Army won the war in Europe, and I am eternally grateful, but hay, we did a pretty good job pushing the Japs back to Japan.

I've completed the game on casual and veteren, and am starting authentic. I'd echo Epithy on most points.

I found enemy AI to be a little shy, excepting in the last misssions, where they did seem to try to flank on occasion. In reading about the campaign, it seems that often the German soldiers would, indeed, often react defensively, rather than offensively in Holland. Surrender was relatively common (this might have been an added feature, though I don't exactly know how). Armor was a different story, however.

Destructable cover... like others, I could keep myself safely behind what would, in reality, only provide temporary cover at best. Here, I am primarily refering to cover from 88s and tanks.

I didn't mind the tank aspects, except it looks like, and there should have been anyway, infantry and tank together (similar to the other BIAs). Enemy tanks should have been beefed up a little.

I liked the solo missions, generally,although it was often beggared logic.

I would have liked to have had fully explorable terrain... as was talked about before the game was released. I was frustrated by being able to sometimes hop a barrier, and other times not, when it seemed like you should be able to - I got shot up sometimes finding out which was which.

Authentic mode could use the compass and maybe a generalized ammo count, and ironsights while in cover, or something... the aiming seemed off - you'd have to aim to one side or the other to get your target. They used tracers in Holland, generally a few in each clip. Using those might be a compromise between ironsights and nothing.

I miss the old situational awareness, even if that sometimes seemed to give you more information than you might deserve. Somehow I got a better sense of place, terrain, and Baker and his squad's location with the old way. Cutting to a map seems ... I dunno... disassociative. Or something.

I had more trouble with this BIA in understanding the geography than the others, but I'm not sure why... I mean I got the version with the map and all..

My only real dissapointment is really, though, the tank missions... I preferred other BIAs tank missions to this one.

It might be nice to have trainer level,even though it's not very "authentic" feeling, to get the game actions down, and to kind of get acclimated (especially for new players). I was used to the other BIAs, so this didn;t bother me much.

I like, really, everything else about this game. I love the storyline and cutscenes (easily the most compelling of the WW2 shooters). I like the dig-in mode, and the danger redscreen. Grenade targeting didn't bother me, once I got the hang of it.

I liked that combat in this game is almost entirely tactical rather than puzzle-solving (as much as I like that, too).

All in all - I really, really like the game. I eagerly await the Bastogne campaign game.

What about smoke? I personally would like that and being able to go prone. You'll are dead on about the destructable cover, tanks and 88's should be able to take out stone walls, they didn't seem to have much trouble taking out the buildings around you. I would like to be able to call in some support. Being able to drop some arty or a couple 500lb bombs would be nice. I'm not sure how much of either was available to the troops in Holland, I prefer authenticty, so maybe that sould have been left out. I prefered the tanks in the other games as well, they seemed a little out of place. All in all the game gets an A+. It may not be as good as Company of Heroes, but that is a totally different type of game, but it stands alone in the FPS category. Medal of Honor and Call of Duty can't touch this.
What's next after Bastonge? I personal hope they begin another series starting with the landing on Gaudal Canal. Sorry for repeating myself, when I checked the other day I couldn't find my original post.