Great game, even better story, but a multiplayer that leaves us wondering what could have been...
With that said, however, I do not feel that a prior experience in the Brothers in Arms series is necessary to really appreciate what this game brings to the table. If someone decided to go out and get Halo 3 without any other Halo experience, does that make the game experience falter some? I do not believe so. In BIA it does make things rather confusing at times when the flashbacks occur and former squad mates are mentioned, but it does not take away from what really makes this game great(well...almost great).
And what really makes this game great, above everything else is how the story correlates with the gameplay. Each member of your squad is an individual and just like in any great tale, we always have our favorites. These attachments make the gameplay unique because you are in charge of ordering these people around; and who really wants a decision that gets one of their favorite squad mates killed looming over their head? Even in situations that are inevitable (which does happen) I found myself trying anything I could to save my comrades. This is what separates a story from a truly immersive experience. And that is what this story becomes, an immersive event in all facets; from the gameplay to the interaction with characters and even the cut scenes. I have heard some people gripe about not being able to skip through the cut scenes and think to myself why you would ever want to, unless you are just playing through the game for achievement points and don't actually want to enjoy the experience. Not to mention that they are essential in grasping the full context of the story presented in the game.
Gameplay is almost a spot on match to the original, which I thought was refreshing in the first person shooter genre. It isn't Call of Duty or Halo, it has a much more pristine and realistic feel to it. However it does handle much like other FPSs, which keeps the learning curve to a minimum. What it is known for is the tactical team based combat that it puts you in charge of. While at the helm of commanding your small squad you are supposed to establish a base of suppressing fire and then individually or with an alternate group flank and kill the enemy. While more often than not in the easy and medium difficulties this process is only needed in the more challenging parts; playing through on the hardest difficulty really puts an emphasis on team based strategy. The controls are fairly streamlined, which can work both in a good way and in a bad way. It is good because it opens the game up to more people, but at the same time bad because it feels almost dumbed-down and not as all encompassing as it could have been. I have read some complain about glitching control issues in the squad commands, and while there are a few inevitable issues, for the most part on my play through of the game my squad handled much like they should have. Something which people did criticize that I completely agree with is the linear level design. I give it some slack because it is an FPS, and it is rare to find a truly non-linear FPS, but in the case of BIA, which stresses tactical strategic combat it seems a little ridiculous that one only needs to pull up their mini map to find the sole flanking route to an opponent they have pinned down...that is undoubtedly disappointing. The tank missions I also felt where a little disappointing. Not only were the controls a little jagged, but I felt the tanks themselves could have been used in a more strategic way. For instance, why not give us a squad of Shermans that we control and then go take down a Panzer or two, this is how they did it in WWII, because the Sherman was so inferior to the German tanks. But that is a minor part of the game. Finally, the last protest I have is with the hidden items add on. The Recon points are alright, although they show you exactly where they are on each map, maybe they could have thought of a better way to make them obvious. But the Kilroys, I felt, were completely useless to the game, I think they were just used as a cheap way to entice some replay value and to lengthen levels while you run around searching for them. And while the recon points were too easy to detect, just the opposite is true for the Kilroys, even when you find one it is hard to see the white chalk on the walls.
The graphics and sound both did an absolutely fantastic job. The character models aren't perfect (I think the main problem is in the facial movements; the mouth and eyes), but what ones are? Whereas the level design and details are so exceptional that they more than make up for the characters. The sound as well as the voice acting is on the same level. While bullets are whizzing by your head and your squad members are yelling at you to take cover it is easy to feel a sense of urgency and realism. I especially like the defined ping the player gets when they reach the end of a magazine. It adds a personal level of sound on what is usually a roaring vast array of battlefield noises. I did not have a problem with in game dialogue, my crew would sometimes chatter about getting to cover, or not completing objectives, but it was not incessant like some reviews made it sound. The last thing to the graphics is the addition that was up there on my list of what I liked best about the game; the action camera. I don't know why anyone would want to turn it off, I felt such a rewarding feeling when shooting across the map with iron sights and the whole battle scene slows down as a tracer round makes its way through an enemies head and their helmet flies off in all the blood splattering glory one could hope for. And maybe even better than the head shots, the grenade kills. I still found myself, even late in the game, after destroying an enemy bunker with a grenade running in and finding guys without their arms or legs and then going and finding their missing body parts, how satisfying is that. Great job.
That brings me to easily the most disappointing part of the game; the multiplayer. I pose the initial question; if a full effort isn't going to be put into making a multiplayer, is it really worth making? I felt this to be the case because there are moments/parts of the multiplayer that I felt was done very well. For example the 10-on-10 without an extraordinary amount of lag is a nice thing to see. I also feel that the individual squads within each team with different attributes/weapons and the ability for the squad leader to designate them certain assignments was a new idea that was somewhat successful. However at the same time you could only use this little system while playing only 1 type of game mode and only a handful of different maps. Additional game modes and maps would help the multiplayer along a lot, because I feel that the base gameplay in the online mode is fun, although could have been more realistic like the game. (I tend to prefer more realistic style multiplayers; like G.R.A.W., where usually just a few bullets or one well aimed one puts you down for good.) And that brings me to my final question about the multiplayer and maybe the most disappointing part of the game for me; why is there no co-op mode? The possibilities here are endless, and I feel that a co-op mode would have been far superior to the multiplayer mode. They could have dropped us into the missions in the game, or even made up missions with a friend and we could have each had a squad or two to control and then we work together to complete objectives. There could have even been a rescue style mission where one player is pinned down and the other with their squad has to go rescue them. The co-op is a must have in a game like this, and the things they could have done with it would have made this game as good if not better than the ones before it. All I can hope for now is that they come out with some type update that makes this a possibility. This all leaves me wondering what really could have been…fairly close, but isn't quite there.
Now the most important part of all games, the pure amount of fun a player has playing it. With the rewarding action cam, fairly difficult campaign (even more so on the hardest level) that you feel satisfied after beating, a story that really drags you into the game, and tactical decisions that let you play through the game differently every time, I felt that the amount of fun I had was definitely above average in terms of most FPSs out there. There isn't a whole lot of replay value after you beat it on the hardest difficulty, but I feel that in a few months I would want to come back to this game a take the 101st on another romp through Holland. (But again, I feel that a great game that you only really want to play through once, is still a great game…with all the new games that come out every week it is hard to invest two run throughs on a single player mode nowadays.)
Grading Scale: (out of 100)
(4 Categories: Gameplay&Story/30, Graphics&Sound/20, Multiplayer&Lasting Appeal/20, Fun/30)
Gameplay&Story: Good realistic feel. Streamlined squad control. (-1) Linear maps. (-3) Great story that reminds me of Band of Brothers…as it is supposed to? (+2) Poor vehicle controls and use. (-2)
26/30
Graphics&Sound: Great action camera. Awesome battlefield noises. Good environmental graphics. Not up to highest standard character visuals. (-2) Great emotional music.
18/20
Multiplayer&Lasting Appeal: Lack of varied maps. (-1) Only one game type. (-4) Absence of what could have been a very good co-op. (-4) Ability to play through and have a different experience each time.
11/20
Fun: Satisfying while playing and when beaten. Very immersive. Variety of objectives is there but not overwhelming. Still wondering what could have been. (-3)
27/30
Misc Bonuses and Subtractions: Originality. (+1) Poor add-ons; killroys and recons. (-1) No effort in making unique achievements. (-1) Keeps us wanting more. (+1)
Total: 82/100