brothers in arms review

Have a picture of Brothers In Arms for PS2?, please send it to us.
 

Average Ratings

Addiction Level	6/10
Graphics	8/10
Value for Money	6.7/10
Overall rating	6.5/10

83% Recommended5 out of 6 Reviews

• Overview
• Reviews
  • kentmulloy's review
  • 3 Comments
• Write your review
• Ask a Question

By kentmulloy on 10th Apr 2005

kentmulloy's Ratings

Addiction Level	6/10
Graphics	7/10
Multi-player	Yes
Value for money	7/10
Overall value	7/10
kentmulloy's recommendation

Good Points

Authentic level design.
Good sound and effects.
Story has depth.
Good animations.

Bad Points

Bad AI, bad aiming and weapons balancing.
Blooming softens everything to the point of being hard to focus, even on high end graphics cards.
AI is very unrealistic at times.
Code is buggy on PC version.
Voice acting appears scripted and all too familar.

General Comments

Ok, I admit it I bought into the hype of Brothers in Arms just as you probably did too? Yes, the critics and gamers were all crying in protest at how we do not need another WWII shooter to flood the market. Even though, deep down I agreed, I was still hopeful that this game was going to be something special, after all, Ubisoft were spending millions at telling us all that it was going to be unlike anything we'd ever played before.

So the release day comes, I rush on down to my local games store and grab a copy, eager to take on the role of the reluctant hero SGT Matt Baker, and kill as many scumbags as humanly possible.

Well, how wrong was I eh. Unfortunately this game (although a substantial WWII shooter) was no where near as "authentic" as Ubisoft would like us to believe. You may be thinking, how would I know what being in a war would actually feel like. Well, I know for a fact that if you shoot someone in the head at a range of 15 metres, they go down, quickly too. But not in Brothers In Arms, it appears that shooting the enemy takes at least three to four shots before they drop, and that's if you can get past the fact that aim and recoil are damm hard to master. Ubisoft stated that these added to the realism of the game, uh, uh I'm sorry but "frustrating" and "unrealistic" would be more appropriate words.

It's a shame too, becuase I realise that no game is perfect, every game has it's strengths and weaknesses, but BOA just ended up a cycle of repetitious levels, find enemy, flank them, move on. Sure there are tasks and orders to carry out, and tank support can be fun to manipulate at times, but overall I think the gameplay was a huge disappointment. Then there's the whole blooming thing. BOA has no shortage of detail, but the problem is, it's buggy, and blooming only makes things harder to see, almost blurry. And I've got quite a high-end graphics card and I still get some poor frame rates when the action went down, and as a result had to bump everything down to low quality.

Don't get me wrong BOA is not a bad game, it's just not as good as Call Of Duty. Quite frankly the whole "Saving Private Ryan" thing is getting old, developers need to let go of WWII and concentrate on shooters that encompass modern day warfare.

Battlefield 2 anyone?....

Brothers In Arms gets a 7/10 rating.

Total Respect: +2