Hell's Highway - 7/10 on Eurogamer

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=243269

Summary: horrible AI, very repetitive and easy missions, disappointing destructability, meh graphics, cringeworthy story.

Yet another Ubisoft failure.

since when is 7 a failure?

Edit, wow i guess you have a vendetta against this game it said nothing about having horrible cover, it said the ai was troublesome not horrible

also it mentions nothing of the story or the graphics which is you just putting things from your own opinion into the review.

god another edit. Im coming off as if this game is my child and im defending it. I think the game has potential am i going to buy it? no ill just let my brother get it. however i think its dumb that hes adding things into the review that arent there to make it sound worse

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=243269

Summary: horrible AI, very repetitive and easy missions, disappointing destructability, meh graphics, cringeworthy story.

Yet another Ubisoft failure.

Baranga

sounds like the first bia...

So it's just like the other two, then? Not a surprise. People cream their pants when they see UE3 games, expecting something special. Developer history > engine.

since when is 7 a failure?Djmaster214

He probably meant compared with expectations. Some people were expecting a great game. Personally, I was expecting a potentially great game, but only if the flaws of the original games were addressed.

since when is 7 a failure?

Edit, wow i guess you have a vendetta against this game it said nothing about having horrible cover, it said the ai was troublesome not horrible

also it mentions nothing of the story or the graphics which is you just putting things from your own opinion into the review.

Djmaster214

Meanwhile, you could have three squadrons of four training their fire on a specific point and they'd struggle to pick off a single enemy if you left them firing for a week.

AI soldiers are regularly unable to effectively pathfind, or worse, get caught in a running loop against a wall for 10 seconds before finally working out where to go.

Now, if that ain't horrible...

Also, this is the second 7 it got in a few days. It's being hyped since 2006, of course it failed.

since when is 7 a failure?

Djmaster214

Since game companies don't set out to make a 7 worthy game.

I really did not like the original BIA game much. It was such a disgrace for a pc game. The maps were tiny and they all looked the same. The flanking system was a nice attempt to makeup for all the other shortcomings.

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=243269

Summary: horrible AI, very repetitive and easy missions, disappointing destructability, meh graphics, cringeworthy story.

Yet another Ubisoft failure.

Baranga

wow, after reading the bad, even 7 seems pretty high

[QUOTE="Djmaster214"]

since when is 7 a failure?

Qixote

Since game companies don't set out to make a 7 worthy game.

I really did not like the original BIA game much. It was such a disgrace for a pc game. The maps were tiny and they all looked the same. The flanking system was a nice attempt to makeup for all the other shortcomings.

I felt the same way about the first installment of the game. I thought they did a good job of addressing the game's shortcomings with the second release though. In hindsight, perhaps I'd just lowered my expectations. I assumed the third one would be a dog after I'd watched a few of the gameplay clips. Seemed like they were more interested in showing off gore-porn and slow motion kills than focussing on anything as mundane as gameplay.

[QUOTE="Djmaster214"]since when is 7 a failure?fatshodan

He probably meant compared with expectations. Some people were expecting a great game. Personally, I was expecting a potentially great game, but only if the flaws of the original games were addressed.

The point is 7 should never be considered a failure. 7 to me means it's still going to be a fun game for people who were hyped about it. 8 should mean its a great game with a few flaws. 9 should be must buy for anyone a fan of the genre even if they never heard about the game. The way review expectations are going, 10yrs from now if a game gets less than 9.7 on websites it's going to be considered a flop.

I saw it coming...A1B2C3CAL

Some of the textures look horrible. Trees look fine, but terrain and objects are horrid, judging by gameplay videos.

Pass. You need to go above and beyond to make a good game in the tired WWII genre these days. Judging from gameplay videos, this looks kind of poor and unfinished. I'm not sure though. I don't follow the series. Just saying from the gameplay videos.

Pathetic. They had ages to make this game and the most unique thing to come out of it is a destructable cover system.

This looks like the year of the Fail. Forget the year of the Dog or whatever it is...

The best games to come out this year are a console port (Mass Effect) and a rereleased game (Witcher). Yay.

I must be the odd one out because, from the gameplay videos I've seen, I think the graphics look pretty good (apart from the 2D grass and flowers). The details on the buildings and the soldiers look good and the lighting and colours (at least on the outdoor daytime levels) look bright and vivid.

Some people have said that it looks too bright and colourful but northern europe does look very bright and green like that. I think the colours and lighting in a lot of games look dull and washed out...more like a water colour painting than real life.

I hope thay can patch the problems with the AI tho.

I must be the odd one out because, from the gameplay videos I've seen, I think the graphics look pretty good (apart from the 2D grass and flowers). The details on the buildings and the soldiers look good and the lighting and colours (at least on the outdoor daytime levels) look bright and vivid.

Some people have said that it looks too bright and colourful but northern europe does look very bright and green like that. I think the colours and lighting in a lot of games look dull and washed out...more like a water colour painting than real life.

I hope thay can patch the problems with the AI tho.

EvanescenceUK

Yes, the landscapes are cute. But, as we pointed out in the preview, why was it so hard to make the German soldiers you face have any facial variety whatsoever? The sight of four bodies all piled up with the exact same faces is the sort of comedy you don't expect at this stage.

There's never any real wow factor about any of it. In late 2008, it's functional stuff, nothing more.