Brothers in Arms: WTF?! (aka "Furious Four")
- Thread starter Neverhoodian
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Funny, because I saw zero gameplay in that first announce video. So, how did you come to this conclusion?Adam Galli said:
OT, I'm interested, to say the least. Sure, I love BIA, but I must say I'm quite intrigued to see where Gearbox takes this thing. If they stick to the tone of the video, I'll keep my eye on it.
Gonna be honest here, I thought that looked pretty bad.
Never played a Brothers in Arms game, though I often thought they looked fantastic I've just never had the opportunity, but that just looked silly to the point of stupidity. Only a trailer however so beyond a stupid premise and some ridiculous stereotypes, not much else to comment on.
Never played a Brothers in Arms game, though I often thought they looked fantastic I've just never had the opportunity, but that just looked silly to the point of stupidity. Only a trailer however so beyond a stupid premise and some ridiculous stereotypes, not much else to comment on.
Looks fun. I'll buy it if I hear good things about it.
You all who are raging need to take a chillaxative. It's 1 freaking spin off of the main series so deal with it.
You all who are raging need to take a chillaxative. It's 1 freaking spin off of the main series so deal with it.
Having read through this thread, and been acquainted with the series, I admit to finding this game in poor taste. It appears to be a cash-in of the title to rake in some fans, and then foisting something that... well, doesn't sit well with me, I dare say.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that if someone wishes to make a truly compelling WW2 game, they shouldn't make it all about jingoistic hurrah, or torturing/brutalizing human beings with no moral consequences whatsoever. Rather, what I would -really- like out of World War 2 games is the ultimate in switch...
Playing as the Wehrmacht. Let us fight as the Nazis, to turn them from cartoon-villains and one-dimensional automatically-evil people, into real humans that you can sympathize with. Then it becomes less of a monumental struggle between good and evil, as it does become a struggle between good and bad people on both sides of the fence. These 'furious four' would fit the mold of 'bad' guys on the Allies (and, I would say, the Inglorious Basterds would fit the same mold).
In essence, my complaints with this game is that it reduces a conflict from a sad, meaningful perspective; from the destruction of cultures, peoples, towns, and that have left such a scar on human history to render it still memorable across three generations, into a glorious indulgence of willful evil against one's fellow man. The series, as I understand it, is one that is borne of such deep emotional ties, so it seems that this is a betrayal of the series' core concepts.
So yeah, some big-name developer, get out there with making a WW2 game where we can actually play as the Germans. -That- is a game I would find artistically and story-wise to be compelling. It would stand, unique and a triumph, amongst all parts of the World War 2 shooter genre. Heck, Treyarch actually was an innovator in that regard, with World at War providing a very stark look at the realities of war, particularly Private Chernov.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that if someone wishes to make a truly compelling WW2 game, they shouldn't make it all about jingoistic hurrah, or torturing/brutalizing human beings with no moral consequences whatsoever. Rather, what I would -really- like out of World War 2 games is the ultimate in switch...
Playing as the Wehrmacht. Let us fight as the Nazis, to turn them from cartoon-villains and one-dimensional automatically-evil people, into real humans that you can sympathize with. Then it becomes less of a monumental struggle between good and evil, as it does become a struggle between good and bad people on both sides of the fence. These 'furious four' would fit the mold of 'bad' guys on the Allies (and, I would say, the Inglorious Basterds would fit the same mold).
In essence, my complaints with this game is that it reduces a conflict from a sad, meaningful perspective; from the destruction of cultures, peoples, towns, and that have left such a scar on human history to render it still memorable across three generations, into a glorious indulgence of willful evil against one's fellow man. The series, as I understand it, is one that is borne of such deep emotional ties, so it seems that this is a betrayal of the series' core concepts.
So yeah, some big-name developer, get out there with making a WW2 game where we can actually play as the Germans. -That- is a game I would find artistically and story-wise to be compelling. It would stand, unique and a triumph, amongst all parts of the World War 2 shooter genre. Heck, Treyarch actually was an innovator in that regard, with World at War providing a very stark look at the realities of war, particularly Private Chernov.
As much as I liked the tone of the original 3, I always thought they were a bit too contrived and tried too hard to tug at your heartstrings with its melodramatics and over-the-top teary voice acting. This is an interesting change. Would like to see how it plays out...
The game looks interesting, and may turn out to be enjoyable, but it should not carry the Brothers in Arms name.
Seeing that video and comparing it to what Brothers in Arms is suppose to be, it makes me further believe that somebody has a screwed up way of thinking over at Gearbox.octafish said:
The reason I say this is that Gearbox fanboys raged at me an others when we said it was Gearbox's fault that Duke Nukem Forever is messed up because they changed it to a two weapon limit system when clearly Duken Nukem is suppose to be a non-serious shooter where the player can have all weapons at had at all times.
The fanboys claimed that that system was in place when Gearbox got it, but I don't believe that. Even if it was, they could have changed it to the traditional Nukem system of all guns, because they had time. The reason I believe Gearbox implemented the system is because they thought it would be better for consoles(they claimed that a controller couldn't handle having 10 weapons at once), but they are wrong, it is pure bull because the old Duke Nukem 3D was ported to the consoles and it works just fine with a controller and having 10 weapons.
That video and the Nukem fiasco shows me that Gearbox doesn't understand the importance of sticking to traditions of an IP.
As you said, there is no good reason they had to relate this new game to Brothers in Arms. If they wanted to tell this new story, they could have just created a new IP/Game franchise. If they were only looking to just make a single new game, then just create a single new game and don't related it to the old IP.
I firmly believe this is one of those quick extra cash grabs. If it is a plain new IP on its own, it might only gain a small amount of recognition and a small sale base and only slightly more through word of mouth if it was good. If it is bad it won't make much more money.
Now since they attached the Brothers in Arms name to it, they look to gain quite a bit more money, right from the start. People that know of and like/love the Brothers in Arms series will jump on it because, hey it has Brothers in Arms on the cover, it must be like or as awesome as the previous games. Then once they spend their money and find out it is nothing like it, it is too late. They will even gain the money of gamers that don't trust reviews and word of mouth and buy things to find out for themselves. So, even if the game is bad and receives bad ratings, it still will garner more money because of the Brothers in Arms name, than a game that is bad and is new IP.
Shame on you Gearbox, your record has been pretty dirty as of late.
Actually, I think I have the perfect comparison.Sober Thal said:
It's like playing some Sonic games, and then Shadow the Hedgehog comes out. And he's got a dark past, and guns...for some reason....yeah....
It's basically taking a mediocre idea and tacking it onto a franchise to try and squeeze some money out of the fanbase, thus alienating their fanbase.
(I've never played a BIA game, just sayin' that I can get the rage.)
Or an even better one would be what FFX-2 did to FFX!
The HELL is this?! This is NOT Brothers in Arms! I recall being promised snow by a certain dead man who wears glasses! If this was a separate series, then okay, but it's not, so it's not okay. Gearbox, you have disappointed me. This better not mean that you have abandoned Baker and actual non-cliche characters for these...people.
And another once great series is going down the drain...
RIP
Rainbow 6
Ghost Recon
Operation Flashpoint
and now
Brothers in Arms.
But I don't think the motivation behind taking a good name and produce poo under it is to cash in from fans (at least not on the developers side). Rather it's because publishers want to play it safe and demand that games get the names of somewhat similar brands, because opening a new IP seems more risky than making a sequel, even if the game would be the very same.
RIP
Rainbow 6
Ghost Recon
Operation Flashpoint
and now
Brothers in Arms.
But I don't think the motivation behind taking a good name and produce poo under it is to cash in from fans (at least not on the developers side). Rather it's because publishers want to play it safe and demand that games get the names of somewhat similar brands, because opening a new IP seems more risky than making a sequel, even if the game would be the very same.
I'm not even a big fan of BiA but damn they really really messed up. The whole point of the game is to suppress, flank and use tactics. What in the shit is this new game supposed to be, the next Borderlands or Brute Force (but those games were fun). Now you have a another annoying Texan stereotype, another nerdy stereotype, another white indian stereotype and my god everyone is so god damn annoying. Gearbox makes great games but not all of them have to be wacky. I am holding out hope with the new Insomniac 4 person probably shooter.
And was anyone else getting the vibe that this game was intended to be Inglorious Basterds the game but couldn't get the license?
And was anyone else getting the vibe that this game was intended to be Inglorious Basterds the game but couldn't get the license?
I really hope this is a spoof of Inglorious bastards. I wholeheartedly agree with the OP's feelings on this one. I still hold up the Brothers in Arms series as one of my favorite World War 2 game, as it really gets you attached to your squadmates as people, not just the mindless cannon fodder of Call of Duty or Medal of Honor.
It even has a gameplay effect that is outstanding. Because you wind up building a connection to your squad, you use them cautiously. It makes you think about your actions and the situation at hand, and the risks it may place on your squads.
This new game just completely shits all over that previous aspect. They boiled it down into a grindhouse spoof. While its only a trailer, I can't expect much depth gameplay-wise looking at this. Think they'll add a point system for creative or humiliating kills? I wouldn't be surprised. Cheesy one-liners coupled with balls-to-the-wall improbability utter disregard
Seriously Gearbox, has making DNF gone to your head? Why not name it "Bastards in Arms", then maybe faithful followers holding out for a real successor wouldn't get our panties in a bunch, and you get to keep the "bia" filename on all your work.
It even has a gameplay effect that is outstanding. Because you wind up building a connection to your squad, you use them cautiously. It makes you think about your actions and the situation at hand, and the risks it may place on your squads.
This new game just completely shits all over that previous aspect. They boiled it down into a grindhouse spoof. While its only a trailer, I can't expect much depth gameplay-wise looking at this. Think they'll add a point system for creative or humiliating kills? I wouldn't be surprised. Cheesy one-liners coupled with balls-to-the-wall improbability utter disregard
Seriously Gearbox, has making DNF gone to your head? Why not name it "Bastards in Arms", then maybe faithful followers holding out for a real successor wouldn't get our panties in a bunch, and you get to keep the "bia" filename on all your work.
You know the weirdest thing? They introduced the game as if it's going to be an emotional, realistic WW2 FPS. And then they showed that. I felt sad for the developer. They won't be getting any money out of this. First rule when introducing a new game in an already established franchise: impress the existing fans.