Brothers in Arms - thoughts after a couple of hours

[schrodinger]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

I read some reviews on Gamerankings being very critical of BIA - on rails,
consoleified etc. Despite this, I thought I would split the £30 and give it
a try.

Firstly, I did not enjoy Call of Duty or MOH:AA that much because they were
both very much on rails and especially CoD seemed too heavily scripted.

I have so far been pleasantly surprised by BIA - maybe because my
expectations had been lowered.

The gameplay, whilst pretty much on rails, does give considerable freedom
within each situation as to how it should be solved - flanking the enemy,
using suppressing fire, all out charge or even taking each position
yourself. Although there are no quicksaves (that I can see) this isn't a
*big* problem as the checkpoints are logically and regularly placed.

The AI is impressive - the enemy takes cover and tries to flank you. Your
squadmates don't simply march into a hail of bullets and even provide
suppressing fire without the need for a request. Throw a grenade behind a
sandbag wall and it is often thrown back after shouts of "GRENADA". Each
replay of a situation pans out differently as the enemy and your comrades
react slightly differently.

My only real complaint so far on this front is the AI of friendly tanks
needs some tweaking - especially the pathfinding. I am a bit fed up of
telling a tank to go somewhere and it either doesn't move, or goes the wrong
way. It will also simply ignore a fire instruction if there isn't a clear
line, instead of moving to enable it to see the target.

The big firefights are very well done, especially as you don't have to worry
too much about your team-mates getting themselves killed in a stupid
situation.

There have been complaints about how hard it is to aim the various guns - I
have managed to dispatch lots of enemies so far, although it does take maybe
4 or 5 shots per soldier on average as even with your sights dead on centre
you often miss.

There are a couple of bugs, but no game breakers for my system - the worst
being a mission which ended up in a black screen -just reloaded from last
checkpoint and it was solved though.

Graphically, it isn't HL2 and maybe even a little behind FarCry, but it has
a cinematic feel and runs fine at 1280x1024 on my mid range system (Athlon
2.2, GF5900XT 1GB Ram). The sound is good, but nothing exceptional. There
is no music in game - presumably to add to the realism and I like this.

Overall, worth playing (not tried MP yet) and is certainly one of the best
WWII shooters out there today. 8.5/10

Regards

Schrodinger

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Schrodinger" <no@1way.com> once tried to test me with:

> Although there are no quicksaves (that I can see) this isn't a
> *big* problem as the checkpoints are logically and regularly placed.
>

NO BUY for me then.

--

Knight37 - http://knightgames.blogspot.com

Once a Gamer, Always a Gamer.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Knight37" <knight37m@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns962662C756F8Aknight37m@130.133.1.4...

> > Although there are no quicksaves (that I can see) this isn't a
> > *big* problem as the checkpoints are logically and regularly placed.
> NO BUY for me then.

Same here.

 

[Jab]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Schrodinger wrote:
> I read some reviews on Gamerankings being very critical of BIA - on rails,
> consoleified etc. Despite this, I thought I would split the £30 and give it
> a try.
>
> Firstly, I did not enjoy Call of Duty or MOH:AA that much because they were
> both very much on rails and especially CoD seemed too heavily scripted.
>
> I have so far been pleasantly surprised by BIA - maybe because my
> expectations had been lowered.
>
> The gameplay, whilst pretty much on rails, does give considerable freedom
> within each situation as to how it should be solved - flanking the enemy,
> using suppressing fire, all out charge or even taking each position
> yourself. Although there are no quicksaves (that I can see) this isn't a
> *big* problem as the checkpoints are logically and regularly placed.
>
> The AI is impressive - the enemy takes cover and tries to flank you. Your
> squadmates don't simply march into a hail of bullets and even provide
> suppressing fire without the need for a request. Throw a grenade behind a
> sandbag wall and it is often thrown back after shouts of "GRENADA". Each
> replay of a situation pans out differently as the enemy and your comrades
> react slightly differently.
>
> My only real complaint so far on this front is the AI of friendly tanks
> needs some tweaking - especially the pathfinding. I am a bit fed up of
> telling a tank to go somewhere and it either doesn't move, or goes the wrong
> way. It will also simply ignore a fire instruction if there isn't a clear
> line, instead of moving to enable it to see the target.
>
> The big firefights are very well done, especially as you don't have to worry
> too much about your team-mates getting themselves killed in a stupid
> situation.
>
> There have been complaints about how hard it is to aim the various guns - I
> have managed to dispatch lots of enemies so far, although it does take maybe
> 4 or 5 shots per soldier on average as even with your sights dead on centre
> you often miss.
>
> There are a couple of bugs, but no game breakers for my system - the worst
> being a mission which ended up in a black screen -just reloaded from last
> checkpoint and it was solved though.
>
> Graphically, it isn't HL2 and maybe even a little behind FarCry, but it has
> a cinematic feel and runs fine at 1280x1024 on my mid range system (Athlon
> 2.2, GF5900XT 1GB Ram). The sound is good, but nothing exceptional. There
> is no music in game - presumably to add to the realism and I like this.
>
> Overall, worth playing (not tried MP yet) and is certainly one of the best
> WWII shooters out there today. 8.5/10
>
> Regards
>
> Schrodinger
>
>

That about sums up my thoughts so far on the game expect I did like MoH
and CoD. It seems to be getting most flak not for what it is but what
people thought it was going to be. Nope it was never going to be like
playing against human opponents - that's what MP is for. Still the best
WWII shooter out there and in many ways one of the best shooters so far
- up there with Far Cry and HL2 IMHO.

Which difficult level are you playing it on? I've started on difficult
after being a bit peeved that CoD normal was way to easy, but difficult
really does seem to mean what it says on the can.

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 15:01:02 GMT, "Schrodinger" <no@1way.com> wrote:

>I read some reviews on Gamerankings being very critical of BIA - on rails,
>consoleified etc. Despite this, I thought I would split the £30 and give it
>a try.
<snip>

Thanks for the write up. I am waiting for the demo to make my mind up,
but it is nice to see some positive views on it.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

 

[Jab]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Kroagnon wrote:
> "Knight37" <knight37m@email.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns962662C756F8Aknight37m@130.133.1.4...
>
>
>>> Although there are no quicksaves (that I can see) this isn't a
>>>*big* problem as the checkpoints are logically and regularly placed.
>>
>>NO BUY for me then.
>
>
> Same here.
>
>

Just wondering why you find that such a problem. I always find it makes
a game 'better' as I have no will power to stop quick saving a game
every minute or so.

 

[shawk]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Schrodinger wrote:
>
> Overall, worth playing (not tried MP yet) and is certainly one of the best
> WWII shooters out there today. 8.5/10
>
> Regards
>
> Schrodinger
>
>

Many thanks for that review. Looking to buy in a month or so. Save
anywhere is not an issue for me.

--
I mean, you've been around a bit, you know, like, you've, uh... You've
'done it'...
What do you mean?
Well, I mean like,... you've SLEPT, with a lady...
Yes...
What's it like?

 

[schrodinger]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"JAB" <nothanks@nohope.net> wrote in message
news:Z9B1e.1757$lA5.589@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> Schrodinger wrote:
>> I read some reviews on Gamerankings being very critical of BIA - on
>> rails, consoleified etc. Despite this, I thought I would split the £30
>> and give it a try.
>>
>> Firstly, I did not enjoy Call of Duty or MOH:AA that much because they
>> were both very much on rails and especially CoD seemed too heavily
>> scripted.
>>
>> I have so far been pleasantly surprised by BIA - maybe because my
>> expectations had been lowered.
>>
>> The gameplay, whilst pretty much on rails, does give considerable freedom
>> within each situation as to how it should be solved - flanking the enemy,
>> using suppressing fire, all out charge or even taking each position
>> yourself. Although there are no quicksaves (that I can see) this isn't a
>> *big* problem as the checkpoints are logically and regularly placed.
>>
>> The AI is impressive - the enemy takes cover and tries to flank you.
>> Your squadmates don't simply march into a hail of bullets and even
>> provide suppressing fire without the need for a request. Throw a grenade
>> behind a sandbag wall and it is often thrown back after shouts of
>> "GRENADA". Each replay of a situation pans out differently as the enemy
>> and your comrades react slightly differently.
>>
>> My only real complaint so far on this front is the AI of friendly tanks
>> needs some tweaking - especially the pathfinding. I am a bit fed up of
>> telling a tank to go somewhere and it either doesn't move, or goes the
>> wrong way. It will also simply ignore a fire instruction if there isn't
>> a clear line, instead of moving to enable it to see the target.
>>
>> The big firefights are very well done, especially as you don't have to
>> worry too much about your team-mates getting themselves killed in a
>> stupid situation.
>>
>> There have been complaints about how hard it is to aim the various guns -
>> I have managed to dispatch lots of enemies so far, although it does take
>> maybe 4 or 5 shots per soldier on average as even with your sights dead
>> on centre you often miss.
>>
>> There are a couple of bugs, but no game breakers for my system - the
>> worst being a mission which ended up in a black screen -just reloaded
>> from last checkpoint and it was solved though.
>>
>> Graphically, it isn't HL2 and maybe even a little behind FarCry, but it
>> has a cinematic feel and runs fine at 1280x1024 on my mid range system
>> (Athlon 2.2, GF5900XT 1GB Ram). The sound is good, but nothing
>> exceptional. There is no music in game - presumably to add to the
>> realism and I like this.
>>
>> Overall, worth playing (not tried MP yet) and is certainly one of the
>> best WWII shooters out there today. 8.5/10
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Schrodinger
>
> That about sums up my thoughts so far on the game expect I did like MoH
> and CoD. It seems to be getting most flak not for what it is but what
> people thought it was going to be. Nope it was never going to be like
> playing against human opponents - that's what MP is for. Still the best
> WWII shooter out there and in many ways one of the best shooters so far -
> up there with Far Cry and HL2 IMHO.
>
> Which difficult level are you playing it on? I've started on difficult
> after being a bit peeved that CoD normal was way to easy, but difficult
> really does seem to mean what it says on the can.

Well, I started on normal but chickened out after getting pasted in one
chapter and now I'm on easy.

/looks at floor and shuffles feet.

 

[schrodinger]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Kroagnon" <kroagnon@kroagnon.com> wrote in message
news:114drf5eakntp75@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Knight37" <knight37m@email.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns962662C756F8Aknight37m@130.133.1.4...
>
>> > Although there are no quicksaves (that I can see) this isn't a
>> > *big* problem as the checkpoints are logically and regularly placed.
>> NO BUY for me then.
>
> Same here.
>
>

I usually feel the same way - went through FarCry using the console to
quicksave and usually won't buy something without save anywhere.

In this case, however, it tends to work better without as the points really
are close together (i.e. after every firefight) and if things are going
badly with your squad, you are better starting the section again anyway.

Oh, one thing I forgot to mention which was really cool - I got stuck having
to play one section again and again. It was down to me and one squad
member - both injured - and 2 others. On the third or maybe fourth attempt,
the game gave me the option of having a fully healed full squad back to
complete the section - which being a total yellar belly I accepted pronto!
Very thoughtful feature I thought!

 

[Jab]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Schrodinger wrote:
> "JAB" <nothanks@nohope.net> wrote in message
> news:Z9B1e.1757$lA5.589@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
>>Schrodinger wrote:
>>
>>>I read some reviews on Gamerankings being very critical of BIA - on
>>>rails, consoleified etc. Despite this, I thought I would split the £30
>>>and give it a try.
>>>
>>>Firstly, I did not enjoy Call of Duty or MOH:AA that much because they
>>>were both very much on rails and especially CoD seemed too heavily
>>>scripted.
>>>
>>>I have so far been pleasantly surprised by BIA - maybe because my
>>>expectations had been lowered.
>>>
>>>The gameplay, whilst pretty much on rails, does give considerable freedom
>>>within each situation as to how it should be solved - flanking the enemy,
>>>using suppressing fire, all out charge or even taking each position
>>>yourself. Although there are no quicksaves (that I can see) this isn't a
>>>*big* problem as the checkpoints are logically and regularly placed.
>>>
>>>The AI is impressive - the enemy takes cover and tries to flank you.
>>>Your squadmates don't simply march into a hail of bullets and even
>>>provide suppressing fire without the need for a request. Throw a grenade
>>>behind a sandbag wall and it is often thrown back after shouts of
>>>"GRENADA". Each replay of a situation pans out differently as the enemy
>>>and your comrades react slightly differently.
>>>
>>>My only real complaint so far on this front is the AI of friendly tanks
>>>needs some tweaking - especially the pathfinding. I am a bit fed up of
>>>telling a tank to go somewhere and it either doesn't move, or goes the
>>>wrong way. It will also simply ignore a fire instruction if there isn't
>>>a clear line, instead of moving to enable it to see the target.
>>>
>>>The big firefights are very well done, especially as you don't have to
>>>worry too much about your team-mates getting themselves killed in a
>>>stupid situation.
>>>
>>>There have been complaints about how hard it is to aim the various guns -
>>>I have managed to dispatch lots of enemies so far, although it does take
>>>maybe 4 or 5 shots per soldier on average as even with your sights dead
>>>on centre you often miss.
>>>
>>>There are a couple of bugs, but no game breakers for my system - the
>>>worst being a mission which ended up in a black screen -just reloaded
>>>from last checkpoint and it was solved though.
>>>
>>>Graphically, it isn't HL2 and maybe even a little behind FarCry, but it
>>>has a cinematic feel and runs fine at 1280x1024 on my mid range system
>>>(Athlon 2.2, GF5900XT 1GB Ram). The sound is good, but nothing
>>>exceptional. There is no music in game - presumably to add to the
>>>realism and I like this.
>>>
>>>Overall, worth playing (not tried MP yet) and is certainly one of the
>>>best WWII shooters out there today. 8.5/10
>>>
>>>Regards
>>>
>>>Schrodinger
>>
>>That about sums up my thoughts so far on the game expect I did like MoH
>>and CoD. It seems to be getting most flak not for what it is but what
>>people thought it was going to be. Nope it was never going to be like
>>playing against human opponents - that's what MP is for. Still the best
>>WWII shooter out there and in many ways one of the best shooters so far -
>>up there with Far Cry and HL2 IMHO.
>>
>>Which difficult level are you playing it on? I've started on difficult
>>after being a bit peeved that CoD normal was way to easy, but difficult
>>really does seem to mean what it says on the can.
>
>
> Well, I started on normal but chickened out after getting pasted in one
> chapter and now I'm on easy.
>
> /looks at floor and shuffles feet.
>
>

I did the same from difficult to easy but then realised that on easy
level you can you run up and shoot people without havening to think
about what you are really doing. For me that sort of spoils part of the
reason of the game.

I also like the 3 tries and you can try again with a healed squad as it
just gives you that extra little chance on some of the more difficult parts.

Don't really understand why the game isn't as popular as I think it
should be but there you go!

 

[Nonymous]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Schrodinger" <no@1way.com> wrote in message
news:OUz1e.6394449$f47.1182716@news.easynews.com...
>I read some reviews on Gamerankings being very critical of BIA - on rails,
>consoleified etc. Despite this, I thought I would split the £30 and give
>it a try.
>
> Firstly, I did not enjoy Call of Duty or MOH:AA that much because they
> were both very much on rails and especially CoD seemed too heavily
> scripted.
>
> I have so far been pleasantly surprised by BIA - maybe because my
> expectations had been lowered.
>
> The gameplay, whilst pretty much on rails, does give considerable freedom
> within each situation as to how it should be solved - flanking the enemy,
> using suppressing fire, all out charge or even taking each position
> yourself. Although there are no quicksaves (that I can see) this isn't a
> *big* problem as the checkpoints are logically and regularly placed.
>
> The AI is impressive - the enemy takes cover and tries to flank you. Your
> squadmates don't simply march into a hail of bullets and even provide
> suppressing fire without the need for a request.

But not that if you *explicitly* tell them to suppress, the enemy's
suppression gauge goes down much farther and much faster than if you just
let them 'auto-suppress'.

> Throw a grenade behind a sandbag wall and it is often thrown back after
> shouts of "GRENADA". Each replay of a situation pans out differently as
> the enemy and your comrades react slightly differently.
>
> My only real complaint so far on this front is the AI of friendly tanks
> needs some tweaking - especially the pathfinding. I am a bit fed up of
> telling a tank to go somewhere and it either doesn't move, or goes the
> wrong way. It will also simply ignore a fire instruction if there isn't a
> clear line, instead of moving to enable it to see the target.

I also would have to agree that the tank AI is my only real peeve with the
game. It becomes a bit annoying at the end of the game where tanks become
important in a particular task (trying not to provide spoilers). Oh,
another peeve... I wish I could hit Escape or something to get past the
narration that's done at the beginning of each level. Kinda hurts when
replaying levels.


> The big firefights are very well done, especially as you don't have to
> worry too much about your team-mates getting themselves killed in a stupid
> situation.
>
> There have been complaints about how hard it is to aim the various guns -
> I have managed to dispatch lots of enemies so far, although it does take
> maybe 4 or 5 shots per soldier on average as even with your sights dead on
> centre you often miss.

Agreed. I noticed that when you first take aim, the sights are very wobbly.
If you wait 5 secs or so, the wobbling mostly settles down. Seems fair to
me. There's no way you can be running from cover to cover, out of breath,
lugging gear, weapons, and ammo, adrenaline pumping, and have the
pixel-point aim people have been claiming is lacking.


> There are a couple of bugs, but no game breakers for my system - the worst
> being a mission which ended up in a black screen -just reloaded from last
> checkpoint and it was solved though.
>
> Graphically, it isn't HL2 and maybe even a little behind FarCry, but it
> has a cinematic feel and runs fine at 1280x1024 on my mid range system
> (Athlon 2.2, GF5900XT 1GB Ram). The sound is good, but nothing
> exceptional.

I liked the ambient noises. When all is quiet because, you can hear the
wind blowing, grass rustling, crickets chirping, etc. The environments are
*very* realistic.

> There is no music in game - presumably to add to the realism and I like
> this.

Agreed.

> Overall, worth playing (not tried MP yet) and is certainly one of the best
> WWII shooters out there today. 8.5/10

 

[Nonymous]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Knight37" <knight37m@email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns962662C756F8Aknight37m@130.133.1.4...
> "Schrodinger" <no@1way.com> once tried to test me with:
>
>> Although there are no quicksaves (that I can see) this isn't a
>> *big* problem as the checkpoints are logically and regularly placed.
>>
>
> NO BUY for me then.

Save points are provided after just about every firefight. There's no real
reason for them in this game.

 

[Nonymous]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

> Which difficult level are you playing it on? I've started on difficult
> after being a bit peeved that CoD normal was way to easy, but difficult
> really does seem to mean what it says on the can.

I played through on Normal first. I'm now about a third of the way through
in Difficult. I'm actually not noticing much difference but I'll probably
want to recind that statement once I get to the later levels.

 

[Nonymous]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Schrodinger" <no@1way.com> wrote in message
news:a8E1e.2601662$Zm5.426743@news.easynews.com...
>
> "Kroagnon" <kroagnon@kroagnon.com> wrote in message
> news:114drf5eakntp75@news.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Knight37" <knight37m@email.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns962662C756F8Aknight37m@130.133.1.4...
>>
>>> > Although there are no quicksaves (that I can see) this isn't a
>>> > *big* problem as the checkpoints are logically and regularly placed.
>>> NO BUY for me then.
>>
>> Same here.
>>
>>
>
> I usually feel the same way - went through FarCry using the console to
> quicksave and usually won't buy something without save anywhere.
>
> In this case, however, it tends to work better without as the points
> really are close together (i.e. after every firefight) and if things are
> going badly with your squad, you are better starting the section again
> anyway.
>
> Oh, one thing I forgot to mention which was really cool - I got stuck
> having to play one section again and again. It was down to me and one
> squad member - both injured - and 2 others. On the third or maybe fourth
> attempt, the game gave me the option of having a fully healed full squad
> back to complete the section - which being a total yellar belly I accepted
> pronto! Very thoughtful feature I thought!

Yeah, it offers this up after your third failed attempt. I wish it gave two
options, though: heal me and my remaining squad up *or* heal us up and give
me my dead squad back. A couple times it was down to maybe just me or me
and one other sqad mate but because my health was also so low I just
couldn't finish the level - one more flesh wound and I'm dead. I often felt
I could finish the level if I could just heal up but when I do, I feel being
given back my entire squad is bit of a 'cheat'.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
news:6iqd41hi3sn60f1sddttvkvv186r6i563f@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 15:01:02 GMT, "Schrodinger" <no@1way.com> wrote:
>
>>I read some reviews on Gamerankings being very critical of BIA - on rails,
>>consoleified etc. Despite this, I thought I would split the £30 and give
>>it
>>a try.
> <snip>
>
> Thanks for the write up. I am waiting for the demo to make my mind up,
> but it is nice to see some positive views on it.
> --
How dare you wait for a demo, a true PC Gamer would have purchased it
straight away to show his/her support to the retail channel and to support
the developer.

;-)

--
Les

Buy on line only!!!

post made in a tree-free computer
i said "NO" to unnecessary packaging and fossil fuels for delivery

against killing trees campaign
http://www.wesavetrees.org/

treewatch - independent observatory about trees
http://thecouriermail.com.au/extras/headstart/activities_arch/tree_survival_2003.htm

please sign petition "Say NO! to killing trees!" available at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/gotrees/petition.html

what killing trees does to pc gamers (escaping from girlfriends dad) in
a million word worth picture:
http://www.santoalt.com/videos/roofjump.php

Shawk - c.s.i.p.g.a - 22-03-2005

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Kroagnon" <kroagnon@kroagnon.com> wrote in message
news:114drf5eakntp75@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Knight37" <knight37m@email.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns962662C756F8Aknight37m@130.133.1.4...
>
> > > Although there are no quicksaves (that I can see) this isn't a
> > > *big* problem as the checkpoints are logically and regularly placed.
> > NO BUY for me then.
>
> Same here.
>
>
The no game save (believe me, I hate that) is not really so bad in this
game. I don't have a major complaint, except that I wish they gave the
option of: save here, or return to last checkpoint. So that you do not get
a save half way through some scenario when you are have dead. Some of the
save just happen at strange places.
The biggest problem I have, is the damn game is hard!
--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
news:6iqd41hi3sn60f1sddttvkvv186r6i563f@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 15:01:02 GMT, "Schrodinger" <no@1way.com> wrote:
>
> >I read some reviews on Gamerankings being very critical of BIA - on
rails,
> >consoleified etc. Despite this, I thought I would split the £30 and give
it
> >a try.
> <snip>
>
> Thanks for the write up. I am waiting for the demo to make my mind up,
> but it is nice to see some positive views on it.
> --
> Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
> Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
> please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
> Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

I love this game (see my Good, Bad and Ugly in the other thread). I really
feel that Ubisoft and Gearbox (which ever it is), has got great AI, and near
perfect blend of squad command (not control) and FPS.
I am currently at D+3. This is not an easy game like CoD, this is a
challenge even at normal level (yeah, I am a wimp, but I play for fun, not
frustration).
--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Nonymous" <noham@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:BKudneI-uYK-89rfRVn-2Q@giganews.com...
>
> "Schrodinger" <no@1way.com> wrote in message
> news:OUz1e.6394449$f47.1182716@news.easynews.com...
> >I read some reviews on Gamerankings being very critical of BIA - on
rails,
> >consoleified etc. Despite this, I thought I would split the £30 and give
> >it a try.
> >
> > Firstly, I did not enjoy Call of Duty or MOH:AA that much because they
> > were both very much on rails and especially CoD seemed too heavily
> > scripted.
> >
> > I have so far been pleasantly surprised by BIA - maybe because my
> > expectations had been lowered.
> >
> > The gameplay, whilst pretty much on rails, does give considerable
freedom
> > within each situation as to how it should be solved - flanking the
enemy,
> > using suppressing fire, all out charge or even taking each position
> > yourself. Although there are no quicksaves (that I can see) this isn't
a
> > *big* problem as the checkpoints are logically and regularly placed.
> >
> > The AI is impressive - the enemy takes cover and tries to flank you.
Your
> > squadmates don't simply march into a hail of bullets and even provide
> > suppressing fire without the need for a request.
>
> But not that if you *explicitly* tell them to suppress, the enemy's
> suppression gauge goes down much farther and much faster than if you just
> let them 'auto-suppress'.
>
> > Throw a grenade behind a sandbag wall and it is often thrown back after
> > shouts of "GRENADA". Each replay of a situation pans out differently as
> > the enemy and your comrades react slightly differently.
> >
> > My only real complaint so far on this front is the AI of friendly tanks
> > needs some tweaking - especially the pathfinding. I am a bit fed up of
> > telling a tank to go somewhere and it either doesn't move, or goes the
> > wrong way. It will also simply ignore a fire instruction if there isn't
a
> > clear line, instead of moving to enable it to see the target.
>
> I also would have to agree that the tank AI is my only real peeve with the
> game. It becomes a bit annoying at the end of the game where tanks become
> important in a particular task (trying not to provide spoilers). Oh,
> another peeve... I wish I could hit Escape or something to get past the
> narration that's done at the beginning of each level. Kinda hurts when
> replaying levels.
>
I haven't really had any problems with the tanks, but maybe I haven't gotten
to where you are (I am at D+3). I did notice that if you tell the tank to
move, then ask it to suppress, it will stop to supress, and you have to tell
it to move after you feel the supression is no longer needed (even though as
it moves it will continue to supress on its own--as it should).


> > The big firefights are very well done, especially as you don't have to
> > worry too much about your team-mates getting themselves killed in a
stupid
> > situation.
> >
> > There have been complaints about how hard it is to aim the various
guns -
> > I have managed to dispatch lots of enemies so far, although it does take
> > maybe 4 or 5 shots per soldier on average as even with your sights dead
on
> > centre you often miss.
>
> Agreed. I noticed that when you first take aim, the sights are very
wobbly.
> If you wait 5 secs or so, the wobbling mostly settles down. Seems fair to
> me. There's no way you can be running from cover to cover, out of breath,
> lugging gear, weapons, and ammo, adrenaline pumping, and have the
> pixel-point aim people have been claiming is lacking.
>

I agree, but I found that the enemy has just as hard of a time as I do, so
it's a wash. And after a bit I accept this (probably more like the real
likelihood of hitting someone in real action).

> > There are a couple of bugs, but no game breakers for my system - the
worst
> > being a mission which ended up in a black screen -just reloaded from
last
> > checkpoint and it was solved though.
> >
> > Graphically, it isn't HL2 and maybe even a little behind FarCry, but it
> > has a cinematic feel and runs fine at 1280x1024 on my mid range system
> > (Athlon 2.2, GF5900XT 1GB Ram). The sound is good, but nothing
> > exceptional.
>
> I liked the ambient noises. When all is quiet because, you can hear the
> wind blowing, grass rustling, crickets chirping, etc. The environments
are
> *very* realistic.
>
> > There is no music in game - presumably to add to the realism and I like
> > this.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > Overall, worth playing (not tried MP yet) and is certainly one of the
best
> > WWII shooters out there today. 8.5/10
>

Spoiler below.
















I found another bug. Sometimes, when you return to a checkpoint, things
have moved! At the taking of the Farmhouse (with the tank under your
command--it ends with Panzer and mortars, and the two guy get killed with
Leggit).
I hit the save, with the friendly tank a safe distance away (around the
corner) when I was coming up the ramp to the farmhouse (right after taking
out the MG42). I wanted to clear the panazerfaust guys out (and it turns
out there is an artillery piece up there to kill the tank), but when I
reload the checkpoint, the tank was on the ramp with me, and guys with
panzerfausts were running to kill it (fourtunaly I jumped up on the tank and
machine-gunned them down), but damn, I kept the tank back for that damn
reason.
--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov

 

[Jab]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Nonymous wrote:
> "Schrodinger" <no@1way.com> wrote in message
> news:OUz1e.6394449$f47.1182716@news.easynews.com...
>
>>I read some reviews on Gamerankings being very critical of BIA - on rails,
>>consoleified etc. Despite this, I thought I would split the £30 and give
>>it a try.
>>
>>Firstly, I did not enjoy Call of Duty or MOH:AA that much because they
>>were both very much on rails and especially CoD seemed too heavily
>>scripted.
>>
>>I have so far been pleasantly surprised by BIA - maybe because my
>>expectations had been lowered.
>>
>>The gameplay, whilst pretty much on rails, does give considerable freedom
>>within each situation as to how it should be solved - flanking the enemy,
>>using suppressing fire, all out charge or even taking each position
>>yourself. Although there are no quicksaves (that I can see) this isn't a
>>*big* problem as the checkpoints are logically and regularly placed.
>>
>>The AI is impressive - the enemy takes cover and tries to flank you. Your
>>squadmates don't simply march into a hail of bullets and even provide
>>suppressing fire without the need for a request.
>
>
> But not that if you *explicitly* tell them to suppress, the enemy's
> suppression gauge goes down much farther and much faster than if you just
> let them 'auto-suppress'.
>

Can't say I've noticed that as I always (almost) play with the
suppression indicators off. IMHO they 'spoil' the game because enemies
are highlighted before you really notice them. I much prefer hearing the
odd shot or voice then trying to work out where it came from.

>>Throw a grenade behind a sandbag wall and it is often thrown back after
>>shouts of "GRENADA". Each replay of a situation pans out differently as
>>the enemy and your comrades react slightly differently.
>>
>>My only real complaint so far on this front is the AI of friendly tanks
>>needs some tweaking - especially the pathfinding. I am a bit fed up of
>>telling a tank to go somewhere and it either doesn't move, or goes the
>>wrong way. It will also simply ignore a fire instruction if there isn't a
>>clear line, instead of moving to enable it to see the target.
>
>
> I also would have to agree that the tank AI is my only real peeve with the
> game. It becomes a bit annoying at the end of the game where tanks become
> important in a particular task (trying not to provide spoilers). Oh,
> another peeve... I wish I could hit Escape or something to get past the
> narration that's done at the beginning of each level. Kinda hurts when
> replaying levels.
>
>
>
>>The big firefights are very well done, especially as you don't have to
>>worry too much about your team-mates getting themselves killed in a stupid
>>situation.
>>
>>There have been complaints about how hard it is to aim the various guns -
>>I have managed to dispatch lots of enemies so far, although it does take
>>maybe 4 or 5 shots per soldier on average as even with your sights dead on
>>centre you often miss.
>
>
> Agreed. I noticed that when you first take aim, the sights are very wobbly.
> If you wait 5 secs or so, the wobbling mostly settles down. Seems fair to
> me. There's no way you can be running from cover to cover, out of breath,
> lugging gear, weapons, and ammo, adrenaline pumping, and have the
> pixel-point aim people have been claiming is lacking.
>

I still have problems in hitting anything at a distance - not like in
CoD where you could take a head shot before the enemy even reacted. I'm
sure that half my problem is actually knowing which bit of the gun sight
to line up with the target!

There have been a few comments that the down the sights view isn't
realistic (from people who have actually fired rifles) but I agree with
you that I'm sure I wouldn't be so 'calm' if I had just run 50 yards
with people shooting at me.

>
>>There are a couple of bugs, but no game breakers for my system - the worst
>>being a mission which ended up in a black screen -just reloaded from last
>>checkpoint and it was solved though.
>>
>>Graphically, it isn't HL2 and maybe even a little behind FarCry, but it
>>has a cinematic feel and runs fine at 1280x1024 on my mid range system
>>(Athlon 2.2, GF5900XT 1GB Ram). The sound is good, but nothing
>>exceptional.
>
>

For once the Recommended spec. seems to be able to cope with the high
settings of a game. I have a mid-range system as well and it runs like a
dream - well almost

> I liked the ambient noises. When all is quiet because, you can hear the
> wind blowing, grass rustling, crickets chirping, etc. The environments are
> *very* realistic.
>
>
>>There is no music in game - presumably to add to the realism and I like
>>this.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>

Have to disagree here I would like to have music at certain 'dramatic'
points but I can see why they didn't include this.

>>Overall, worth playing (not tried MP yet) and is certainly one of the best
>>WWII shooters out there today. 8.5/10
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 08:05:21 GMT, JAB <nothanks@nohope.net> wrote:

>> Agreed. I noticed that when you first take aim, the sights are very wobbly.
>> If you wait 5 secs or so, the wobbling mostly settles down. Seems fair to
>> me. There's no way you can be running from cover to cover, out of breath,
>> lugging gear, weapons, and ammo, adrenaline pumping, and have the
>> pixel-point aim people have been claiming is lacking.
>>
>
>I still have problems in hitting anything at a distance - not like in
>CoD where you could take a head shot before the enemy even reacted. I'm
>sure that half my problem is actually knowing which bit of the gun sight
>to line up with the target!
>
>There have been a few comments that the down the sights view isn't
>realistic (from people who have actually fired rifles) but I agree with
>you that I'm sure I wouldn't be so 'calm' if I had just run 50 yards
>with people shooting at me.

The problem is in 2 parts, part 1 is getting the rifle lined up with
the target. I don't really have a problem with this being somewhat
difficult (bad sight wobble just after running and the like).

The other part of the problem is that when you pull the trigger the
bullet should hit almost exactly where you are pointing at that
moment. At 30 yards a service quality M1 Garand will put a bullet
within an inch of the aim point. All the ranges in the early part of
the game, your bullet should go exactly where you were aiming when you
pulled that trigger, even if you're aiming at part of a helmet
sticking up over a wall.

Of course they probably made it hard to do exactly that since they
didn't bother to implement leaning around obstacles or lying prone.

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"JAB" wrote:

> > But not that if you *explicitly* tell them to suppress, the enemy's
> > suppression gauge goes down much farther and much faster than if you
just
> > let them 'auto-suppress'.

> Can't say I've noticed that as I always (almost) play with the
> suppression indicators off. IMHO they 'spoil' the game because enemies
> are highlighted before you really notice them. I much prefer hearing the
> odd shot or voice then trying to work out where it came from.

I think it is much more immersive with the suppression indicators off. For
the same resons as above plus *you* have to make the decision when to move
based on the response of the enemy, not when an indicator tells you it is
ok.

This makes it much more realistic. Also you don't have to suppress and
flank, you can be successful as stated elsewhere in this thread

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Schrodinger" <no@1way.com> wrote in message
news:a8E1e.2601662$Zm5.426743@news.easynews.com...

> >> > Although there are no quicksaves (that I can see) this isn't a
> >> > *big* problem as the checkpoints are logically and regularly placed.
> >> NO BUY for me then.
> > Same here.
> I usually feel the same way - went through FarCry using the console to
> quicksave and usually won't buy something without save anywhere.
>
> In this case, however, it tends to work better without as the points
really
> are close together (i.e. after every firefight) and if things are going
> badly with your squad, you are better starting the section again anyway.

If the checkpoints are arranged logically I agree it wouldn't be as big of
an issue. But I still have a problem with games lacking save anywhere and
won't buy them or even play the demo.

> Oh, one thing I forgot to mention which was really cool - I got stuck
having
> to play one section again and again. It was down to me and one squad
> member - both injured - and 2 others. On the third or maybe fourth
attempt,
> the game gave me the option of having a fully healed full squad back to
> complete the section - which being a total yellar belly I accepted pronto!
> Very thoughtful feature I thought!

Yes that is interesting. Though I have heard alot of negative feedback about
inaccurate / ineffective weapons in this game.

Think I'll wait it out. Too many WWII FPS games anyway, gets boring after 3
or 4 in a row.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

>>>>> "Johnny" == Johnny Bravo <baawa_knight@yahoo.com> writes:

Johnny> The other part of the problem is that when you pull the trigger the
Johnny> bullet should hit almost exactly where you are pointing at that
Johnny> moment. At 30 yards a service quality M1 Garand will put a bullet
Johnny> within an inch of the aim point. All the ranges in the early part of

FWIW, 4 inches at 100 yds is considered an acceptable service limit.

That's about what mine does, although I haven't tested it on a bench rest.

--
Michael Bain

 

[schrodinger]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

<snippety>
>>
>> > There is no music in game - presumably to add to the realism and I like
>> > this.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> > Overall, worth playing (not tried MP yet) and is certainly one of the
> best
>> > WWII shooters out there today. 8.5/10
>>
>
> Spoiler below.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I found another bug. Sometimes, when you return to a checkpoint, things
> have moved! At the taking of the Farmhouse (with the tank under your
> command--it ends with Panzer and mortars, and the two guy get killed with
> Leggit).
> I hit the save, with the friendly tank a safe distance away (around the
> corner) when I was coming up the ramp to the farmhouse (right after taking
> out the MG42). I wanted to clear the panazerfaust guys out (and it turns
> out there is an artillery piece up there to kill the tank), but when I
> reload the checkpoint, the tank was on the ramp with me, and guys with
> panzerfausts were running to kill it (fourtunaly I jumped up on the tank
> and
> machine-gunned them down), but damn, I kept the tank back for that damn
> reason.
> --
> Dr. Dickie
> Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
> Poking kooks with a pointy stick.
> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
> discoveries,
> is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'"
> - Isaac Asimov
>
>

Yeh - I noticed this a few times. I suspect it simply "checkpoints" your
health and ammo states and nothing else. Would make sense on the Xbox as
would save a lot of processor and disk time.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 15:10:29 -0800, Michael Bain
<poppa@wetleather.com> wrote:

>>>>>> "Johnny" == Johnny Bravo <baawa_knight@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>Johnny> The other part of the problem is that when you pull the trigger the
>Johnny> bullet should hit almost exactly where you are pointing at that
>Johnny> moment. At 30 yards a service quality M1 Garand will put a bullet
>Johnny> within an inch of the aim point. All the ranges in the early part of
>
>FWIW, 4 inches at 100 yds is considered an acceptable service limit.
>
>That's about what mine does, although I haven't tested it on a bench rest.

The average for Service Grade rifles from the DCMP is about 3 inches
at 100 yards, but that is with a pretty good amount of barrel wear,
new those rifles were as accurate as the shooters using them. Patton
didn't call it the best battlefield implement ever devised for
nothing.

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft