Was Road To Hill 30 Gearbox's best game?

My counter-point however, which you have nothing to address with, does.

The end indeed.

I do, I simply chose not to as the argument changed from "Republican Commando is more tactical" (which is clearly addressed) to "this game is not tactical" - which was most likely an attempt to circumvent the retort.

The attempted point, "you have 1 solution", well yea, you have 1 solution in a great deal of games, that doesn't remove the tactical element - how you get to that point is where the tactical element comes in, and this does have options in maps, unlike Republican Commando which are preset points, with markers. So really, 0 thinking of any kind.

Perhaps it's been years since you've played them and tinted glasses have taken effect, or perhaps it's good old elitism but these are the facts:

• Republican Commando has smaller more linear maps
• Republican Commando has pre-set designated points
• Brothers In Arms has more open maps
• Brothers In Arms allows them to be commanded from any point the player sets with multiple flanking points, regardless of a set enemy point.

However shallow, vacuous Brothers In Arms may be, Republican Commando is more.

never claimed it was, merely pointed out it is still the go to tactics of a small arms firefight

Road To Hill 30 doesn't have tactical branded on the box and generally isn't described as a tactical shooter, even though as quite rightly pointed above and confirmed by video extras, it was advised by a military expert specifically pointing out WW2 tactics.

Arguably Republican Commando attempts to sell the tactical element more, when "sophisticated Squad Commands" essenailly amounting to "press E at glowly thing".

Republican Commando drops you in a variety situations against a variety of enemy types. And solutions to them are not the same every time. Thus it's more tactical and thoughtful.

All you fight in BiA is badly voiced jerries, who never do anything besides sitting in their designated cover. And most of the levels are just plain fields, so their size matters not.

So you have some jerries in a plain field behind a haysack and there's a haysack between you and them and a trench to the left of you.

But gee boy, i can order my guys to move anywhere i want, don't i?

By comparison, Half-Life 1 has one use for every NPC you meet, which usually involves opening a certain door.

But according to you it's incredibly tactical by proxy of you being able to order them to stand anywhere on the map.

How about both republic commando and BIA suck?

Republic commando is even worse. Terrible shooting mechanics

Only time Republican Commando approaching tactical when ordering all your men to target a shielded enemy. But, again, that is tantamount to "point at thing and press E", there is no variables going on beyond "press E" and "don't press E".

Beyond that, everything is predesignated with Call Of Duty directed maps, It has no tactics, none.

As opposed to ordering your men to designated points, against designated scripted sequences, against designated endless respawns.

The levels are plain fields, because men fought in plain fields, if you find that boring, fair enough, that's your prerogative.

Well yes, this was established multiple posts ago.

Well no, Halflife usually has a single corridor in which your man goes in a very linear direction. Brothers In Arms has options, nothing on a par with Rainbow 6 or Swat 4, but it does have options.

Republican Commando is more comparable to Halflife, as that is more linear and the "multiple" objectives are essenailly one, pre-desinated objective, very much like a bunch of Nazis sitting in a trench except, while BIA gives a level of freedom, Republican Commando has none. It's an allusion of command.

Not sure where you got that from, never said that at all, and once again, it's basically changing the argument.

It's more tactical than Republican Commando. That was the point.

An absolute classic, it was such a welcome change from the other run and gun titles at the time. Using the squad commands to outflank the enemy as well as the well told story really set this game apart from the rest for me. The music for the games was really well done imo. Best WWII FPS games out there. The amount of research and detail put into the maps was pretty amazing.

Boringlands happened. Gearbox went for a lighter comedic side. When furious 4 was first announced it looked like a borderlands game with a WW2 skin. That made me sick, part of the charm of BIA is how authentic and serious it is for a ww2 game. rarely does a shooter actually make you nervous about the next firefight. I miss that intensity. Unfortunately borderlands make them quite a bit of cash so why would they visit a old ip if they know their current one is the cash cow.

Potential leak that voices are being recorded for new Brothers In Arms game ? The only Gearbox series I really care about. I still hope for a sequel since hells highway. If they do its probably going to be outsourced, and any money made from it is going to go towards another Borderlands game.

They aren't a huge team of developers, like when they made Aliens Colonial Marines they had outsourced a lot of the project. Borderlands 1 and 2 were made in house but Borderlands Pre-Sequel was made by, the now defunct, Gearbox Australia. Battleborn is being made in house and so will Borderlands 3...

Just like BiA has no variables beyond "supress and flank" and "don't progress through the level".

Funny you harp on Call Of Duty, since the WW2 ones had larger maps than BiA could ever hope for with its PS2 hardware limitations, and, according to you, that equates to more tactical.

As opposed to a variety of enemy types that actually make an effort at killing you.

Yeah right, WW2 was fought exclusively in plain fields.

Can you spare some examples?

I think any of the brothers in arms games are their best games. They were really really good and I loved the squad suppress and flank mechanics. Its a shame borderlands got so big because we'll probably never get games like those again

Well no, we made a clear distinction that has been reiterated several times now.

You using the same mechanic over and over = not tactics is like complaining in an RTS, you click things over and over, and therefor that's not tactics, or because you just drive a car in a racing game, no thinking is involved. Or... because you can only fly in a flight sim, it requires no modicum of intelligence.

It's an argument of the mechanic itself rather than the variables created by it.

Republican Commando has practically none. BIA does.

Nope, the argument was it was more tactical because it was less directed, which isn't necessarily related to maps size.

To put it simple,, two options is more than one option.

A small map, with 2-3 options, is 2-3 options more than Republican Commando,

This is another attempt to redirect what was actually said.

Even then it's still wrong. . There would have been men who fought, or almost exclusively rural areas and the game almost directly mirrors World War 2 images.

Your attempts at conflating control mechanics with gameplay mechanics to make a counter-point is disingenuous at best.

Pushing a button is not a gameplay mechanic. Suppress and flank is. And if it's all your game offers, it's a damn shallow one.

"Clicking on things" in an RTS does a lot of different things.

"Pressing E" in Republic Commando does a lot of different things.

And it does more different things than pressing F in BiA.

Which is why it has more depth.

By this notion Minecraft is an epitome of tactics.

SWAT 4 has missions that are more directed than BiA. Doesn't make it less tactical.

As for video, wider corridors don't magically stop being corridors.

Too bad this doesn't describe BiA at all.

2-3 options that do the same thing are not really options.

If the game would differentiate between cover/destructable cover/concealment maybe you'd have a point.

As it stands, it doesn't matter behind which obstacle you place your dudes. As long as they have line of sight on the enemy, they're immortal and can suppress. Congrats, you win. You solved this tactical conundrum, move on to the next one.

The order system would lose nothing if it worked exactly like in Republic Commando.

There would have been men who stayed at home at that time period and have seen no war at all. Ever wonder why you don't see any WW2 games about them?

WW2 has seen a plethora of combat situations and environments. It's a gold mine for game developers. Unless you're a bunch of lazy hacks who can only design plain fields.

My friend, even Randy Pitchford wouldn't come up with such a garbage excuse.

Again, editing out parts of the post to change context.

""It's an argument of the mechanic itself rather than the variables created by it"

Republican Commando's "multiple things", are preset, designated points. They do not allow the player to dictate them beyond activating them, nor do they actually create variables beyond what the game has dictated, usually through a scripted sequences of spamming enemies.

The men will respond to you, like you're giving them commands, but really, it's no different from pressing E in Halflife to climb a ladder. The difference is you're getting feedback, the root level, use or not use.

No sir. That's your notion of taking a specific context argument, and applying it universally across different genres to make it applicable to two very similar titles attempting to achieve the same thing.

Which (in order to win this argument) you really have to do, since, in the specific context presented, BIA wins.

Well, yea, they are.

Will I take a tricycle or plane to Brazil? Will I go round Spain or Germany? Well, I'll get to Brazil anyway, so who gives a shit.

It differentiates through approach. More would be nice, for sure, and the game can be modded as such, but it does have options, regardless if you deem them shallow or not, they exist.

At no point was it claimed otherwise BIA was complicated, you seem to have it drilled into your that I do, constantly attempting to change it to that argument, even though I've repeatedly said quite the opposite.

The core argument, the one you've attempted to sidestep on a continual basis, is that BIA is less shallow than Republican Commando - which seems to have gone unheeded probably because you inherently know you are wrong and that t was a bile comment, rather than actually comparing the games.

On an additional point, you also made a point that Brothers In Arms was marketed as a full blown tactical game, as opposed to humble Republican Commando, this appears also to be wrong. It was marketed as a real life story, and authentic, but that doesn't mean it's a tactical shooter.

Advertising it as a full blown tactical shooter would be counterproductive as those sell less than action games, we only need to look at the transformation of Rainbow 6 to see this.

@R10nu said:

There would have been men who stayed at home at that time period and have seen no war at all. Ever wonder why you don't see any WW2 games about them?

WW2 has seen a plethora of combat situations and environments. It's a gold mine for game developers. Unless you're a bunch of lazy hacks who can only design plain fields.

My friend, even Randy Pitchford wouldn't come up with such a garbage excuse.

Changed the context of an argument from "Men didn't exclusivity fought in fields" to "Fighting in fields sucks" Which is subjective.

Attempting to change the argument, or insult me, or whatever, won't magically change reality, this, really seems to be the crux of all this debate, can't win it, so change it, divert it.

We really are done, I've argued my case as best I can, and you seem intent on emotional rather than rational reasoning.

Neither does BiA.

(And you don't have to press E to climb ladders in Half-Life games.)

I specifically mentioned SWAT 4 in the bit you're quoting here.

You're dodging this one hard and i don't blame you.

It shatters your "more directed = less tactical" argument.

One of these options is moronic and impractical, thus not really an option. Which leaves us with one.

Not a bad representation of how it works in BiA. Thanks.

My point is, if you want to stretch the definition of tactical options to accomodate for doing useless small-time stuff, Republic Commando still comes out on top.

You claimed to have played it recently, but don't seem to remember that you can order your guys to move anywhere in that game too. Oh the sweet options.

Oh please, we're talking Randy "Colonial Marine" Pitchford here, who was in charge of all of the interviews.

Real combat (as we`ve learned from our military consultant, author/historian/airborne ranger Colonel John Antal) is as much a battle of wits as it is a test of skill. The battlefields in real life and in the game are typically not linear - this presents you with a large number of tactical options.

-http://www.gbase.ch/pc/specials/0/Brothers-in-Arms---Road-to-Hill-30-Interview-mit-Randy-Pitchford-258.html

We've played a couple of the other games that have attempted some kind of squad command, and it's really obvious when you play those games that they were designed and implemented by game makers, without any meaningful influence from real soldiers who know what real squad leadership is all about.

The system had to assume that the men behave like real, trained soldiers. They had to be fully capable of engaging the enemy, covering each other, finding cover for themselves, and getting good firing positions to engage from. We programmed them with logic that respects the standard operating procedures and battle drills these men were actually trained with.

-http://www.gamespot.com/articles/brothers-in-arms-road-to-hill-30-qanda-final-thoughts/1100-6119621/

Didn't change anything, my problem from the get-go was with the lack of variety, be it from mechanical or level design standpoint.

So the irony of this is strong.

Be my guest.