Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway: Game Design Review

The third in the series, Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway follows Matt Baker and his squad of men as they take part in Operation Market Garden. Like in previous games, it's a tactical squad-based FPS where you control Baker and yell out orders to your various squads.

As far as I could tell, there were only several real differences compared to its predecessors aside from better graphics. Note that this only applies to the single player, not sure how the multiplayer is any different.


Destructible cover- You can now blow up and destroy scenery with your bazooka squad or grenades. This is extremely fun actually and adds a bit of tactical variety. You can now force enemy squads into destructible cover and then blow up the cover!

Cover based shooting and healing- Like modern shooters you can now take cover behind chest-high walls and you heal slowly if you wait a little.

Grenading close targets- In previous game, sometimes the game would end up in a stalemate with your troops and enemy squads being several metres apart firing at each other behind cover. Now, if you're close enough you can order them to grenade the location instead which is much more fun and safer for your guys ending stalemates much more easily.

Otherwise the game and the tactics involved are the same. You still have to fix/suppress them with fire and then flank them.

Game Design issues
The main criticisms of this game are the same as in my review of the previous game in the series.

Lack of order queuing- In the game you can order people to provide cover fire and attack enemy squads  but you can't actually queue orders. I believe this was done quite deliberately to to make the game much more immediate and accessible for console players and also force you into action.

Missing tank control- In the previous games, you could order a tank around which acted as a powerful weapon and also as mobile cover. In this game, the tank has been removed from the main game. Instead you occasionally get to control a tank in an action sequence. The tank sections are okay but frankly ordering a tank around the battlefield is much more fun.


Squad situational awareness against explosives and threats- While squad members will take cover appropriately, they aren't particularly good at avoiding getting blown up by tank shells or explosives just like in previous games. They pretty stay exactly where they are and die regardless or how horrible the situation is going. You have to pretty much tell me where exactly where you want them to go.


Indoor gameplay- During the single player campaign, Baker will sometimes be separated from the squad indoors and have to shoot his way out. Unfortunately this is where the problems of the cover-based system are exposed. Because of the narrow corridors, all too often Barker's head often obscures your view and enemies also tend to run into you more often giving you little chance to react. There isn't a close range attack so it can frustrating at times when you die because you're reloading while the enemy is less than a metre way.

Linearity- This is a very linear journey from set piece to set piece and very short. There are no optional areas or missions which is a bit of a shame really. I think a couple branching areas would have livened things up a bit and added a bit of replayability.


A lot of my criticisms focused around the problems inherent creating a game like this. Who do you please? The action-orientated gamers or the more hardcore simulation gamers? This is not a simulation game, this a squad-based action shooter primarily for the consoles and it's hard to criticise the game on it's simple command system and controls because that's exactly what it set out to do. It's still an engaging if linear game and good for a couple of hours.


Overall
I enjoyed this entry into the series, and its a good solid action game. It doesn't stray far from the mould of the original games so if you enjoyed those you'll enjoy this but if you're looking for something different, it's best to look else where!

Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood

Brothers in Arms: Earned in blood is a sequel to Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30.

First of all its a game which balances tactics, realism and fun. You can't play it like an action shooter except at the easiest difficulty but its not a hard core simulation like Full Spectrum Warrior or Hidden and Dangerous . In other words a thinking mans FPS but doesn't require you to read a 60 page manual.

I do recommend it however there are a couple of issues I would like to note:

There isn't any way of issuing or queuing orders more complex than 'move' and 'fix the enemy' and you can only point to locations only you can see. It's not a super deal breaker as enemy and game levels are generally designed with this limitation in mind at least against enemy troops as most walls and barriers are invincible against bullets.

The problems with the AI and command system however become more apparent in certain conditions such as when the area is particularly large and you want your troops to head to a landmark but accidentally choose the wrong side of the landmark or when you see an enemy tank and want your troops to distract an enemy tank while you get into position. Just like in real life, bullets do nothing against tank armour. More often than not while you're moving to secure an anti-tank panzerfaust your troops will get killed because they don't move from their location. This also means you can't create orders such as "Starting flanking them when I start firing from this location", you have to manage your troops every step of the way.

Storywise the game weaves in and out of the first game. I believe that some of the levels take place in the same areas during the same time as levels in Road to Hill 30 except your character Joe Hatsock takes a different route from Sgt Matt Baker from the first game. I find this is a bit of a problem in the narrative because the game refers to a number of major incidences in Road to Hill 30 such as character deaths or Baker's actions and I'm unsure what exactly they are referring to. It would definitely make more sense to someone who has played the first game.

I love how real the levels are and how they have been recreated from the real towns. Unfortunately, the game's weather mimics the real conditions during the period of the conflict which means that its always cloudy and grey or raining. Coupled with the grey buildings of the time it makes the game feel a bit dull and drab at times. I sort of wished they had taken some artistic license here but that's just my personal feelings.

One crucial thing which I strong disliked about the game was how they created ficitional biographies and extras of the characters and slipped them into the extras while mixing it up with real biographies and actions of real WWII soldiers without clarifying that the game's characters were fictional. Having never played Brothers in Arms before, I feel that this move diminishes the efforts of the real soldiers during that time by placing them on equal footing as fictional characters because the levels and locations are based on real WWII conflicts and towns and the actions of the fictional characters are based on real actions of real soldiers.

At the moment, the games in Australia and New Zealand are being sold together so definitely get both together if you can so you can properly appreciate the intertwining stories.