[QUOTE="krp008"][QUOTE="Large_Soda"][QUOTE="krp008"][QUOTE="EnderSR388"][QUOTE="krp008"][QUOTE="EnderSR388"] [QUOTE="krp008"]I told myself if GS gives this game at least an 8.5 (the score that they also gave COD4), i will buy the game. But looking at every other review (pretty much 7/10's, im still just going to rent it. I need multiplayer, man! Unless its a game like Fallout 3 with 100's of hours of gameplayceells87
Big EL OH EL there! You wait until a game scores what you think it should, then you'll buy it? Yeah it has four 7s so far out of 10 reviews. Terrible game! :roll: Sorry, but you're not a BIA fan, you're a chronic complainer who expects a game to live up to a 2 year old trailer pixel for pixel.
You might want to rethink picking up Fallout 3 as well, I'm sure it's not going to live up to your legendary expections. :?
Man, arnt you pissy today...
Ive read most of the reviews, and most are saying that it gets painfully repetitive, graphics are last gen at some spots, AI is bad, story isn't as moving as promised, multiplayer is nonexistent, replay value is low, destructible cover isnt as destructible as you'd think, etc... Why is that worth my $60 again?
BTW all i have preordered is Fable 2 and Far Cry 2
The problem I'm having is that you haven't even played the game. Now if you had rented it, then came on here and said these things, I wouldn't give you such a hard time, but you're drilling all this stuff that you've read in a few bad reviews into the ground.
I can come in here and recite reviews all day as well, but does that mean it's correct? No. It's opinions. Look at all the people who hated Too Human, then played the full retial version and loved it, despite the reviews. Too Human's scores were a lot lower then BIAHH.
How are those flaws i listed opinions? They are facts!
"story isn't as moving as promised"
"gets painfully repetitive,"
"destructible cover isnt as destructible as you'd think"
All of those are opinion. You have no right to claim them as fact.
- "The game's biggest problem is simply a crushing lack of variety. Set over ten chapters, by the time you're four or five chapters in, the sense of grinding repetition really sets in, with the only major difference being the setting. With the enemy permanently set up in predictable formation in front of you, it really does just become a case of picking off the cannon fodder, blasting through weak defenses, flanking and repeating until bored." - Eurogamer
- "Equally disappointing is how limited the level of destruction actually is, especially when it has such profound implications to a game like this. While it's initially great to see enemies getting blown to smithereens in glorious slow motion as you rip through their cover points with a ballistic, the extent of what you can actually destroy is incredibly limited next to, say, Battlefield: Bad Company. Buildings remain impervious to attack, wrecked vehicles remain anchored to the ground, and feeble corrugated shields remain in place no matter what. Having seen what's possible in other games that have been on sale for months, there are aspects of Brothers In Arms which simply feel dated at this point in time."
- "As ever, Gearbox has made a lot of noise about the narrative drive of the game, but to these English eyes, the drama consistently feels overblown, and, towards the end, really quite cringeworthy. We're supposed to feel for these guys, and for how invested they are in the decisions they make that cause the deaths of their comrades, but, in honesty, it just felt like the writers were trying too hard to pull our heart strings."
For the first part of that review - it's a shooter. You shoot things. Thats not repetition, thats gameplay and the genre. Since they clearly talk about the setting changing then thats proves thats not repetative. The AI isnt either. I've played the chapters multiple times and the AI have yet to do the same thing they did previously. Now if they meant that they take cover instead of running at you like a man who thinks he's god well then yes, to an idiot (like this reviewer) that is repetative.
for the second- the cars come apart, the building walls blow apart when hit with explosives, you can shoot through wood. How is that not destructable. This "OPINION" is going off of what modern weapons should cause. An M1Grabnd woulnd be able to shoot through concrete im afraid to say so why should they put that in there. And the cars dont stay on the ground when they blow up. I had my bazooka team take out a truck some nazis were behind and the damn thing flipped. How is that anchored down.
and for the thrid part- The story is fantastic and not once was anything over down. No death was drawn out in an attempt to make anyone cry or hate life. The characters interact with each other in their last moments like they would. You dont get all emotional and have a breakdown in a warzone, especially not in that time period. The characters who perfect amounts of emotion and respect for the fallen in this game. But i guess a good ol Englishman who had to sit through a game focusing on americans couldnt see that. I bet if a box of tea got thron into a river he would have had his "heart strings" pulled
Preach on my friend!
Log in to comment