"; if(is_file("header.php")) include "header.php"; else include "../header.php"; ?>

This crap is getting old Overview: Excellent twist on the old FPS genre. Good use of a simple team based structure, but still fundamentally the same genre, and not the more advanced real time infantry based skirmishing simulation that many were hoping for. Disclaimers: As of this review, I have played about half the game (patched to 1.02). I havent played it in multiplayer, which may make a big difference. Like many others, I have become bored of the run of the mill first person shooter. The only thing that changes is the resolution of the 3D models and textures, and theme of the things you shoot. Something a little more is needed. A bit more thought and a little more to do except play a fairground duck-shoot that is made a little more interesting by the wonders of 3D hardware. The hype with Brothers in Arms (BIA) was that it modelled real infantry tactics. The general rules of engagement against an enemy can be summarized as 'find him, fix him, flank him, finish him'. BIA models these tactics by allowing you to fix (ie suppress) an enemy by force of fire so that they cannot or dare not shoot back. This allows your team to flank the enemy positions and finish him. So, I was looking forward to a tactical battle, with both the enemy and my side using real tactics, trying to beat the other not just by having the best guns and highest health, but by real tactical fighting. Unfortunately, BIA is an old style FPs rather than a real time first person tactical simulation. The first issue is that the enemy do not use tactics at all - they are your standard dumb and scripted enemy of every other FPS. Only YOU can use real tactics. This means that levels play out the same every time, despite the promises from gearbox that the AI was so good that it would respond to different tactics in different ways. Well, yeah, they might shoot in different directions if you approach from a different direction, but they do not move to meet new threats, and generally dont do anything clever. Put simply, they just feel like standard FPS enemies, each glued to their own part of a heavily scripted and limited map. The second problem is that the levels are the old 'room based map' affairs, rather than the wide expanses of terrain in something like Far Cry or Operation Flashpoint. Its one of those games where you can see large expanses of fields in either direction, but there is usually a fence or something that magically seems able to stop the strongest tank from getting to the other side. Because of the small map sizes, there isn't really that much in the way of tactical options, and the best flanking route is usally the only flanking option... usually you have to find it and then use it. Flanking is more a puzzle to be solved than a real tactical decision. Finally, there is a problem with storyline vs gameplay. Gearbox have gone for gameplay (despite the promises of missions based on research of actual skirmishes, and 3D detail scanned from actual footage, the game still feels more fps than deep simulation... the real South of France didn't have tree stopping you moving more than 200 yeards from the start point for a start!. Much of the cammaraderie of the conflict is lost by sticking to FPS conventions, although the game does try hard to lose some of the old cliches - there is no health packs, etc. But those conventions that are kept tend to kill all that painstaking research and pull you back into FPS-land... fallen soldiers miraciously recovering for the next level is possibly the biggest reality killer for storyline, because you have no emotional link to any of your team - they are just another cog in the puzzle solving that underpins progress. Perhaps not a big deal to some gamers, but for me the title of this game seemed to imply a more thoughtful and real to life interpretation. But I've still given this game 5 stars, because as a FPS (which is what it really is) it is one of the better efforts out there. Its fun, it makes you think a little more than the average FPS, and the graphics are cool. The team mechanic is simpler than hoped, but it still works, particularly because you cannot complete all but the earliest levels without using your full team. Also, the game plays well out of the box, which gives it mega kudos over certain other games (HL2, I'm talking about you!) For those that are happy with a good FPS with a bit of simplistic team work thrown in, buy it. Its one of the better games of the genre, and will certainly not look out of place if your game collection has other good FPS games in it (Halo, Half Life 2, Far Cry, and the other WW2 FPS offerings such as MOHH and Call Of Duty). For those that were hoping for true tactical combat, where the enemy AI feels like a real, directed team, you need to stick with the aging Operation Flashpoint for a little longer. OFPs graphics may be an aquired taste, and OFP2 may be years off, but theres nothing here that comes anywhere near it for enemy infantry based AI. Specs: Works well on my hardware, consisting of Radeon 9800 Pro (overclocked by 10%), standard XP2800 and 1Gig memory (on most modern games, 512Mb can create glitching - 1Gig seems to be the minimum these days). Smooth, playable frame rates at 1280x1024 with all the options on high, so its not a difficult game to play on reasonable hardware. *** UPDATE 24 March 2005 *** Having now completed the game, It is obvious that this is a well designed game and a great concept and attention to historic detail. Unfortunately, they picked a rather odd choice in game engine... they use the old Unreal engine (albeit heavily modifed to create better graphics). This makes the reason for all the shortcomings in my main review obvious - technology. Still, I thoroughly enjoyed the game, its just that I was rather hoping for a slightly different, more tactical and freeroaming game with a less scripted enemy (that doesnt stick to predefined positions), larger levels (to allow a more freeform game rather than the room based one we have), and bigger firefights (the game seems limited in the maximum number of soldiers it can support, and big setpiece battles seem a little cut down from the historic descriptions I have seen in the game and on the web. S