Brothers in Arms Exclusive PS3?

[expletive]

I think its possible that if BIA were the 1st or 2nd WW2 FPS instead of the 471st, we'd be a bit more impressed. Its getting more and more difficult for games in this genre to distinguish themselves.

 

[mckmas8808]

I think its possible that if BIA were the 1st or 2nd WW2 FPS instead of the 471st, we'd be a bit more impressed. Its getting more and more difficult for games in this genre to distinguish themselves.

Why don't they make a game about A DIFFERENT WAR!!

Damn it's just stupid as hell how they make a game about the same war different person or army brahgad (spelled wrong) every year. There's 100s of wars to make games about that need and want a first person view.

I feel like they will give us a different game about each and every person in WWII because it's all said and done. Aren't people interested in the war between Afghanistan and Russia, French and Indian War, or whatever etc.?

 

[mckmas8808]

I was more impressed by the overall visuals of Lost Planet (as a spectacle)

as has been said, they are two different styles.

Seeing these hi-res screens I now see a LOT of detail that GB has added to make this game look amazing (for the genre)

Not to mention this game is almost a year away.

Yeah that's basically what I meant in a nutshell.

 

[Tap In]

W.... Aren't people interested in the war between Afghanistan and Russia, French and Indian War, or whatever etc.?

not really

WWII was about a world uniting to overcome a global threat to defend the freedom of many countries by a devious aggressor. In short, one of the few honorable wars ever. Can't really compare to most wars which are about land, religion or politics. We can mentally dehumanize Nazis as evil, so it's easy to make them the enemy in a game.

Not to mention that being fought on several fronts makes it perfect for the diversity of a video game.

 

[mckmas8808]

not really

WWII was about a world uniting to overcome a global threat to defend the freedom of many countries by a devious aggressor. In short, one of the few honorable wars ever. Can't really compare to most wars which are about land, religion or politics.

Not to mention that being fought on several fronts makes it perfect for the diversity of a video game.

Understandable, but don't you think after the 500th game that maybe these same devs should focus on making a war game on another war?

Basically what I'm asking is why can't they make a WWII game every 2 to 2.5 years instead of damn near every year? Give us a different war in between to keep it fresh. There has got to be another war in the history of man that people will want to play.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Why don't they make a game about A DIFFERENT WAR!!

Damn it's just stupid as hell how they make a game about the same war different person or army brahgad (spelled wrong) every year. There's 100s of wars to make games about that need and want a first person view.

I feel like they will give us a different game about each and every person in WWII because it's all said and done. Aren't people interested in the war between Afghanistan and Russia, French and Indian War, or whatever etc.?

BIA is about a real squad that progressed through a real war. The series recreates historic battles, involving real squads that lived and died. They follow the 101st Airborne division through the drop in normandy and carenten (game 1 & 2) then through operation Market Garden (game 3 hell's highway). I think it's awesome, in this case fact is better than fiction.

Now that they're adding the additional squads, with the abilities to use grenade launchers and fire mortars, the gameplay in this game has the potential to be truly groundbreaking, the AI was already so advanced, now you add in the ability to destroy cover, and attack from a distance, this game is going to be chaos.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Understandable, but don't you think after the 500th game that maybe these same devs should focus on making a war game on another war?

I know what you're saying, but as long as these games keep selling they'll keep getting made. Also, there are a few standouts in this category, COD is one, and BIA is the other. These are both truly excellent games, and should be distinguished from the other fodder that is out there (I'm looking at you EA )

 

[mckmas8808]

I know what you're saying, but as long as these games keep selling they'll keep getting made. Also, there are a few standouts in this category, COD is one, and BIA is the other. These are both truly excellent games, and should be distinguished from the other fodder that is out there (I'm looking at you EA )

Okay so basically I need to go on a personal boycott of WWII games then right? Starting now I will no longer support the WWII cause until they start making games on other wars.

And that goes for my friends to that trust my judgement on games being that they know I talk on videogame forums and all. (Don't ask me, they just trust me) I will tell them not to buy these WWII games.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

not really
WWII was about a world uniting to overcome a global threat to defend the freedom of many countries by a devious aggressor. In short, one of the few honorable wars ever. Can't really compare to most wars which are about land, religion or politics.

I can only half-heartedly agree with this; WWII left my country and almost a dozen others in Eastern Europe, including half of Germany, under 44 years of Soviet occupation... Then again it's offtopic here to discuss wether a German Nazi occupation would've been better...

 

[mckmas8808]

I can only half-heartedly agree with this; WWII left my country and almost a dozen others in Eastern Europe, including half of Germany, under 44 years of Soviet occupation... Then again it's offtopic here to discuss wether a German Nazi occupation would've been better...

Where do you live?

 

[Tap In]

I can only half-heartedly agree with this; WWII left my country and almost a dozen others in Eastern Europe, including half of Germany, under 44 years of Soviet occupation... Then again it's offtopic here to discuss wether a German Nazi occupation would've been better...

As soon as I hit submit, I thought of the Soviet occupation which definitely must have sucked.

sorry

[/threadjack]

 

[expletive]

In last week's OXM podcast, Randy Pitchford does talk about why WW2 is so compelling a setting for games. One of the reasons he points out was becuase of how personal the actual killing was, whereas you literally saw 'the whites of their eyes' when you shot someone. The other was the enormous impact it had from a global historical perspective. All of which i agree with, but im not feeling anything grounbreaking in gameplay with this title just yet.

 

[Acert93]

I can only half-heartedly agree with this; WWII left my country and almost a dozen others in Eastern Europe, including half of Germany, under 44 years of Soviet occupation... Then again it's offtopic here to discuss wether a German Nazi occupation would've been better...

We cannot discuss the background of a game? What is the point of a WWII game if it cannot generate constructive dialogue. IMO That would be a sign of the maturity of the gaming media format -- that it allows, and encourages, demographics of people to engage and wrestle with society and history. Especially a demographic that is typically uneducated in this regards.

Actually, I would enjoy a WWII game that was kind of open ended-split path where the gamer is on the "good" side but faced with the travesties on their side. e.g. The Allies knowledge of the concentration camps and the use of trains in delivering Jews to such and why they decided against destroying them. Or why the Americans waited so long to enter the war, etc and so forth. Placing gamers in moral and ethical situations, historical ones, and making them choose a path and deal with the fallout from such raises many, many interesting questions.

I personally hope gaming matures into such a format. Of course it could be abused for political purposes and could be very subversive in that way. As for your specific circumstances, I am not sure the original poster was noting all of WWII was great. There was a lot of collateral damage and the post-war circumstances of many devistated nations was far from great. But I think the attraction to WWII in the west is the response to an obviously aggressive and menacing threat that began such destruction. Obviously not responding to the brutal executions of millions of Jews, Gypsies, and others who stood in crosshairs of Nazi Germany would have been unnacceptible, and in that regards the "fighting the evil Nazis" has a kind of "acceptible" status for war.

i.e. It is ok to kill because you are killing real bad guys. Although war is never that simple, or that clear, and troops are typically pawns of greater (and typically evil on all sides) powers. Then again, I hope more games begin to point this out as well. Yay, you killed a Nazi. He was also a father, husband, and son. How does one feel about that, especially if they were sent on un-ethical orders by a superior commander? (like looting)?

I don't think these games generally allow us to intelligently engage these sorts of questions... and rarely does the gamers killing have a very constructive, wider view of their actions. But I think that is part of the immaturity of the medium.

 

[cedclark]

Hey guys I would agree that BIA is better in the eye candy development but are World War games getting old to you all too? Well for me it is, atfer i beat call of duty 1 and 2 I dont want to see a World War remake game for a long long time..... Hey it looks nice but I cant wait until the sci-fi games like Lost planet and gears of war and killzone come out (if you havn't noticed yet im not a ****** to anything. I plan on owning ps3 as well until then i will enjoy my 360)

 

[scooby_dooby]

Hey guys I would agree that BIA is better in the eye candy development but are World War games getting old to you all too? Well for me it is, atfer i beat call of duty 1 and 2 I dont want to see a World War remake game for a long long time..... Hey it looks nice but I cant wait until the sci-fi games like Lost planet and gears of war and killzone come out (if you havn't noticed yet im not a ****** to anything. I plan on owning ps3 as well until then i will enjoy my 360)

well i like BIA because it really makes you think, you have to plan your attacks and try and overwhelm the enemy, but the enemy is always shifting and responding to your actions, which results in a great chess match. If they can take what they've built in the first two games, and expand it over larger scale battles it would be a new level of war game. Especially with the inclusion of destructable cover and mortar teams.

 

[SugarCoat]

i wouldnt mind a good FPS based in the pacific theater or basing a story around a Wehrmacht soldier for a change personally. Late war US vs Germany is old and boring.

 

[mckmas8808]

Actually, I would enjoy a WWII game that was kind of open ended-split path where the gamer is on the "good" side but faced with the travesties on their side. e.g. The Allies knowledge of the concentration camps and the use of trains in delivering Jews to such and why they decided against destroying them. Or why the Americans waited so long to enter the war, etc and so forth. Placing gamers in moral and ethical situations, historical ones, and making them choose a path and deal with the fallout from such raises many, many interesting questions.

I personally hope gaming matures into such a format. Of course it could be abused for political purposes and could be very subversive in that way. As for your specific circumstances, I am not sure the original poster was noting all of WWII was great. There was a lot of collateral damage and the post-war circumstances of many devistated nations was far from great. But I think the attraction to WWII in the west is the response to an obviously aggressive and menacing threat that began such destruction. Obviously not responding to the brutal executions of millions of Jews, Gypsies, and others who stood in crosshairs of Nazi Germany would have been unnacceptible, and in that regards the "fighting the evil Nazis" has a kind of "acceptible" status for war.

i.e. It is ok to kill because you are killing real bad guys. Although war is never that simple, or that clear, and troops are typically pawns of greater (and typically evil on all sides) powers. Then again, I hope more games begin to point this out as well. Yay, you killed a Nazi. He was also a father, husband, and son. How does one feel about that, especially if they were sent on un-ethical orders by a superior commander? (like looting)?

I don't think these games generally allow us to intelligently engage these sorts of questions... and rarely does the gamers killing have a very constructive, wider view of their actions. But I think that is part of the immaturity of the medium.

This is F'ing Bullshot!! People like you need to be making and designing WWII games. If WWII games made me think about ACTUAL real events and consequences then I would feel the characters much more.

And with the facial detail of next-gen games they could actually make me cry like I did when I was 12 when I seen Aeris die. I'm too old to be crying to these low level non-mature games.

It's BS that game designers aren't either allowed or won't take the risk in doing exactly what you said and what.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Okay so basically I need to go on a personal boycott of WWII games then right? Starting now I will no longer support the WWII cause until they start making games on other wars..

A war game is a war game. The setting doesn't much affect gameplay. Pick a different war and the guns and equipment will be different, but the prnciple is still sneak around, shoot at people, duck into cover when needed. A change of clothes perhaps, but what does it matter whether the building rubble is smashed Eastern European buildings or smashed Middle East buildings? The only way a change of conflict will affect gameplay is when you move to different periods where things were done differently. How's about a Napoleonic wargame, where you pick a soldier and stand in a large square formating getting shelled? Or a medieval siege where you run up to the wall and get boiling oil tossed over you and it's game over? Or a WWI game where you're sat in a trench for 5 hours of gameplay trying to keep your anxiety down by tapping the X button rythmically (slow breathing) and with a 'clean your foot of trench foot infection' minigame, then the whistle blows and your over the top, can't make out much in the smoke and noise, and then find you've been gunned down by a machine gunner?

In real war, casualties are high, and any game simulating that would have the player be taken out on many occassions, meaning end of game. I know of one game that supported this realism which was Wings on 16bit, a WWI aeroplane combat game, where you would die and come back into the game as a new pilot (except of course everyone just reloaded to max out their stats and become an invincible flying ace...)
The nature of computer games, like movies, is going to be almost always artficial. In soooo many movies the hero would have been dead a dozen times if they were realistic. Likewise in games the player wouldn't last very long at all in many situations if they didn't bend reality a geat deal.

As for can games communicate the horrors of war, I don't imagine so. Presenting it realistically would firstly make people sick, and then they'd get used to it. There's loads of content on TV that once upon a time wouldn't have been shown for being offensive or disgusting which now makes common viewing without people batting much of an eyelid. And wargames are used effectively to get modern soldiers used to the idea of killing people where naturally human beings have an aversion to that, as found by research into the number of soldiers that, for example, wouldn't fire their gun at an enemy charging them. I think an occassional experience like 'Saving Private Ryan' does a great job of communicating certain realities, but if trying to present those realities becomes a mainstream revenue source for a developer with sequel after sequel, their audience will become very desensitized. By "Realistc Wargame 4" seeing your friends gunned down and in agony calling out for their mothers and putting a bullet through their head to put them out of their misery will just be a common experience. In fact the gamers would likely save the bullet to shoot a baddy as it's only a computer sprite and they want to win the game, not win some virtual morality award and lost the game as a result.

 

[_phil_]

doesn't 'proof of concept' hint that it's rendered to specs ,and not actually in game ?

 

[expletive]

doesn't 'proof of concept' hint that it's rendered to specs ,and not actually in game ?

The shots linked above are exactly the same as the movie on IGN so at least those are not rendered to spec.