actually i feel the opposite way
comparing graphics of games of two different generations of consoles is moot, so that part i'll ignore. i'll just say for the time rth30 and eib were released they actually looked really good and i still think they have a really good mood to them, probably my favorite in any ww2 game. something about the dead quiet, open fields, recreated from real ww2 battles just feel realistic in a way that the bombastic urban wars of call of duty never really matched for me. lots of small details like switching weapons actually having a lengthy animation and the blur when aiming down the sights were actually really impressive at the time. i also felt like the violence looked really raw, like it wasn't exaggerated like in hell's highway but it also wasn't downplayed and someone getting hit by a tank would end up being a bloody mess of a person, but not to the point it's gibs everywhere. it was a genuinely moody game.
second, the complaint about controls is weird. it's not call of duty, the point was never for you to be able to line up shots perfectly and whatnot. i remember trying to beat the game just using commands (except that one section, obviously), which actually work super well and are very streamlined and simple but really enjoyable too. every fight is like a small puzzle and it's all in how you arrange your people for suppressing fire, flanking, etc. there's no need for you to shoot people yourself, and if you do it's inaccurate to simulate the tension of a real life battle. yeah it's a bit too inaccurate but then you have hell's highway which can be easily be played like a regular third person shooter what with the regenerating health and the cover mechanics and whatnot. the first games were scary, one or two shots and you're dead and tanks and turrets would fuck up your team really bad if you were dumb. and having someone die or taking a shot had persistent consequences which gave decisions a gravity that hell's highway insta-respawning squad members and regenerating health didn't. and since you're a lot more independent because your accuracy is so much better then it's not such a big deal to have one or two guys die on you.
and tbh i didn't really like the more "cinematic" approach to hell's highway's storytelling either. it has a lot of cutscene drama which is pretty decent, even if it's aged really poorly, but it lacks the subtlety and the sense of dread and despair of the first two games. whereas rth30 actually feels like your squad's being taken out one by one and like things couldn't get any worse and that the best thing that happens is actually not having everyone die on you, hell's highway, which is supposed to be a story about a big american defeat, actually feels like a victory, in no small part thanks to the more action-y nature of the gameplay, but also how colorful everything is and how empowered having access to bazookas and good aiming and regenerating health and tanks driving missions makes you feel. the story in the first games often happened off screen, with missions started around the body of one of your comrades that got killed by an unseen sniper bullet, and delivered so well by baker and red's monologues at the start of each level. characters would get a lot of "gameplay characterization" because of how effective they were in combat, rather than getting dedicated cutscenes and you'd bond with them that way. i remember back when i was playing rth30 for the first time being the biggest fan of red because of just how effective that machinegun he had was and how he always seemed to pull through for me, and then when he got a few lines of dialogue that just helped cement him as a likable character, but it was all built on how awesome he was during gameplay. the potential the first two games had for that was really high, while being so powerful and independent on hell's highway meant you didn't get to experience that sort of thing, at least not nearly as often
i don't think hell's highway's bad or anything, i actually like how it wraps up baker's whole pstd thing or whatever, but it's imo the least interesting game in the series, really hamstrung for its early gen release being so tied to the whole gears of war craze and whatnot.
it's one of my favorite shooter series, and i really like its cast and how serious gearbox was about being faithful to historical events and characters, so i'd love a new game, but i think they should go back to the more minimalistic, intimate style that made that series unique, and leave the explosions and the gore for call of duty
sorry for the rambly post, i really like that series!
You don't have to be sorry about the post. I am happy that somebody responds to my posting and I'm happy that there are more "Brothers in Arms" fans out there.
You are right that comparing two generations of graphics isn't fair, but it's just that the first two entries in the series just look sometimes sort of "damaged". Some effects, for example the grass, just didn't work for me. And I always felt that the character models seemed too small, almost like they all were Hobbits. Even the tanks seemed smaller, perfect for the small character models, but just a little too small to be believable.
Hells Highway looked more like what I was excepting. It lacks the dirty, washed out "WW2 look" (that I also like) and looks more like the Technicolor version of the first two "Brothers in Arms" games. In a way it looks more real than the first two games, which look more like war movies, at least with the colors and all.
The things you describe about "one or two shots and you are dead" and "and tanks and turrets would fuck up your team really bad if you were dumb" were things that I liked about the game as well. As long as it was comprehensible.
When I needed to play a part of mission 10 times because the AI thought about not going behind the cover or walking in front of the enemy to the next cover instead of walking behind, I didn't like it so much.
Of course it did not happen 10 times in a row, it was more like "I fucked up", tried again, "I fucked up again", tried again, and now the AI made a mistake.
The parts were I knew it was my own fault because I missed an enemy here or an anti tank weapon there, these were good. I could improve myself and learn from it. But the controls and the AI weren't flawless enough, and I was angry at the game (mostly "Earned in Blood") when things happened because of it.
I think because of the smaller environments, it wasn't that much of an issue in "Road to Hill 30". But in a few of the later missions in "Earned in Blood" it was just annoying.
Also that they used far more enemy tanks, which just meant that I had to run back and forth from the Panzerfaust crate to the tank was a design flaw that annoyed me because after I destroyed the tank I died a few moments later and had to do it all over again.
I also get that the shooting wasn't meant to be like "I am Rambo and kill all the Germans" but when I suddenly stay in front of three enemies that did not see me coming, I just expect that I can use the momentum as my advantage, but most times it was more of a disadvantage. But like before, that annoyed me more in "Earned in Blood". I turned on the crosshair in "Earned in Blood" after half of the missions because I was shooting all over the place and felt that I needed to "add realism" because I can't believe a solider would shoot THAT bad.
I never felt the need to to that in "Road to Hill 30".
The reason I shot people myself was, because I started not trusting the AI early in the game. I tried to let them do the job, but sometimes it just ended up in a disaster instead of what was planned. Sometimes it was my fault. sometimes it was the AI that fucked up, but I just wanted to do it myself then. When my guys can hit the enemy, why can't I? Maybe it was a design decision to make aiming that bad, to force the player to use his guys instead of doing it himself.
I guess with more checkpoints, I would have liked "Earned in Blood" more, but the bigger maps had the same amount of checkpoints which just did not add up and let to larger parts of the mission being repeated over and over again when I died.
You are right that the shooting mechanics in "Hells Highway" are way too accurate. What the first two games were lacking in accuracy that has "Hells Highway" too much of. If feels better because I finally can hit something if I aim right, but I definitely am hitting too good now. I noticed that early on myself, because I could just kill the machine gunner from afar, something that was impossible in the first two games. Machine guns were the dangerous man eating things that they were in real life.
Also, I'm definitely missing this: "switching weapons actually having a lengthy animation". That added much to the realism.
To end this posting, I would say I really liked "Road to Hill 30" with all it's flaws in controls, AI and so on because all the positive points that you list I can agree on.
But I liked "Earned in Blood" less and it made me realize that something was missing from the game (or the series) to make it more enjoyable and better playable.
I think "Hells Highway" may have overdid it now in some ways and the truly great game is somewhere between "Road to Hill 30" and "Hells Highway" (no, not "Earned in Blood" even if it's between them, lol) but for now, and after the not so good experience I had with "Earned in Blood", "Hells Highway" feels quite nice.
_/¯. I think it's more a case of Nostalgia goggles+hyperbole.
