Customer Reviews
A Thinking Man's Shooter - By: CJ, 18 Nov 2008 
Following on from its two predecessors, Hell's Highway continues the story of Sergeant Matt Baker & his squad of US paratroopers as they take partin the ill-fated Operation Market Gardenin September 1944.
The game relies a little too heavily on the player having completed the two earlier games. It tries to fillin the story and, to be fair, does succeed, but it's definitely a richer experience if you know your Brothersin Arms history.
The game incorporates a cover system, extra fireteams (bazookas make a welcome appearance) & there is a new health system whereby your health recharges after taking cover for a few seconds (similar to Call of Duty). The gameplay is largely the same, & these new additions are very welcome. You must use squad tactics & good cover to pin, flank & overcome your enemies.
Control of both your character & your fellow soldiers is generally smooth & solid. Occasionallyin the heat of battle things get a little fiddly, & your squad AI isn't always as sharp as it could be, so you end up doing a lot of the fighting yourself. Thankfully, unless you play on the very hardest difficulty, enemy AI is not very aggressive (German tanks are especially rubbish), so you usually aren't punished too hard if you take on too much or make a mistake. This isn't always the case, but is is more often than not. Hell's Highway is an easier game than its prequels.
The graphics are very nice, with a huge effort made to portray the different characters as individuals, & they are all well animated too. Hell's Highway is a surprisingly gory game, with slow-mo headshots & exploding bodies being frequent, but it can be turned offin the options.
The good graphics are important as this is a very story-driven game. You care about the men under your command & what happens to them. Few games have tried as hard as this to represent how gruelling & difficult war is, & the burden that rests on the NCOs who are responsible for so much of the key infantry battles.
The stress Baker feels is well handled throughout & although the ending is perhaps a little rushed it just about fits. It makes a nice change for a game to attempt to show the psychological impact of war, rather than purely concentrating on the guns & killing (although there is plenty of that too). It is genuinely sad & also amusingin places.
The multiplayer side of Hell's Highway appears to be something of an afterthought. With just one game type (a mild variation on capture the flag), some pretty bad lag & next to no players, you won't spend much time on it. But the campaign mode is engrossing & rewarding, so the game is still well worth a play.
Heaven... - By: Mr. B. Sellers, 15 Nov 2008 
Got something COD hasnt, a cover system. A 1st person shooter that you CANT just run & gun. Part shooter, part RTS... ACE.
You just get the feeling that it was rushed... - By: A. J. Gough, 11 Nov 2008 
Like many other people who have reviewed this game, I was excited at the prospect of this after seeing the development footage. I was even content with the constant reschedule of the release date, hoping that Gearbox were tweaking the product. In hindsight, after completing the game I am really disappointed.
It's not the just the average graphics (for a next-gen console, they are pretty standard), poor AI & clumbsy controls (take a lesson from the Rainbow Six Las Vegas series if you're going down this road) - the gameplay & levels are just so linear.
In a time when developers are exploring the whole 'immersion' aspect of gaming, there's only one way of completing a mission. That smacks of the likes of COD & more gun-ho titles, not a 'squad-based tactical shooter' as this game claims to be. Why not give you full access to the entire map & have you make battle plans & decide how you will complete the object rather than have someone else determine it for you.
Couple this with the poor squad command programming mentioned by others & you get the feeling that this title was rushed - money for old (and somewhat tatty) rope.
When you look around & see that with the £40 you spent buying this game could have been put towards a shooter like Bad Company or Farcry 2 you are left scratching your head as to why you parted with itin the first place. I don't mean to be overly critical of this game, there are moments that are genuinely enjoyable, but that's about it - it doesn't leave you wanting to come back for morein a hurry. Gearbox's press releases had them announcing 'destructive cover' & 'MG & bazooka teams' as if they were unheard ofin the past. In reality, you can turn a wooden fencein to splinters with a machine gun & have an MG team pin the enemy & use your bazooka team to destroy selected cover - hardly ground-breaking.
This was meant to be Gearbox's piece de resistance - instead they've had a taste of their own medicine & been 'outflanked' by other, more creative titles.
Well I Loved It - By: Moosehunter, 30 Oct 2008 Having read some of the other reviews I find myself needing to put my thoughts down.
I have been a PC gamer for years but last year bought a 360 to go with my new LCD telly. I have tended to avoid FPS games due to the fact I am proficient with a mouse & always found gamepad controls fiddly & awkward.
Having played & enjoyed the the 2 previous games on PC I decided I would take a huge gamble & get this on the 360 to see if i could handle it.
After a short while fiddling with the controls the whole thing became completely intuitive. Above all though I have never enjoyed playing a game through to its conclusion as much as this one.
There are many comments about poor AI & squads doing what they like,butin my experience the squads will do exactly as you tell them as long as you get your instructions right & don't give them stupid instructions. For example if you arein a building them don't wander miles from your squad before ordering it around or yes they will most liekly be killed as they try & find you. They don't know where you are & will stumble into enemy fire. If you are a short distance away they will reach youin one piece. For me this ups the immersion factor.
I am slightly biasedin that I love WW2 games full stop, you can't beat killing a few Nazis for entertainment & the settings & weapons are for me the best.
Yes you could complete this game without your squads but for me the immersion factor is all important so using your squadsin a sensible & tactical way adds to the fun immensley. The weapons feel right, I love the cover system, the action cam is brilliant, the bazooka squad is awesome.
I also liked the tank sections, yes they are arcadey but are great fun.
I loved the graphics to, again they gave me the real immersion factor.
Negatives. The story was Ok but the cut scenes sometimes seemed to drag on a bit & err thats about it really.
I can't wait for the next installment.
One final thought is that I have read a lot of comments about the WW2 theatre being done to death. Well I partly agree but onlyin that we seem the same parts of WW2 done over & over again, ie Normandy. I would like to see a FPS at the start of the war, battle of france for example, & morein the far east against the japanese (roll on COD 5). If we are going to stick to Normandy then lets have some different armies (British would be nice) & different equipment. Not all allied tanks were Shermans, lets have some Cromwells, Churchills etc. The germans had a huge vareity of equipment but all we seem to see are 88's & panzer IV''s.
Finally though if you love WW2 games & are prepared to play this properly & use your squads intelligently you will love this game. When completed you can then pick any of the missions to play all over again & try out differnet tactics.
Love it, don't expect the world & you will love it to.
For Those Who Enjoyed BIA 1 & 2 - By: Nip Stone, 25 Oct 2008 If you enjoyed the first two BIA games then this one is to be recommended. It retains all the good features of Road to Hill 30 & Earnedin Blood, & makes intelligent use of the additional processing powerin the new consoles to fix most of the drawbacks of the first two while adding new features, which are generally good. The graphics are better, which is to be expected, but there's none of the "whizz-bang graphics at the expense of gameplay" attitude which is all too common these days.
Positive points. Three squads gives you more flexibility than two. You can jump over walls now, just like the Germans couldin the first two. Destroyable scenery adds a new dimension. You can aim when you throw a grenade. Squad control is a bit easier when under fire.
Negative points. The cut scenes are a lot more drawn out, some of them verging on one-act plays (anyone unfamiliar with the first two games will find them a bit confusing), but the menu system allows them to be skipped. There are a couple of longish solo play sections, i.e. no squad support. There's no infantry/tank co-operation, for the tank sections you become the tank commander & control the vehicle solo, it grows on you but is out of character with the rest of the game.
A worthy successor.
