At the end of August, he must finally come true: Brothers in Arms: Hell’s Highway. The long-awaited shooter from Gearbox Software and Ubisoft has quite some delay is known, but will see this summer, really light.
I have the game in the making for the past six months two times able to play: a time around christmas 2007 and not so long ago at the Ubidays. The game impresses, of course, looks solid and promises to be more story. The tactical schietgevechten are slightly lower threshold because of the option to the game as “old-fashioned” shooter to play, but that does not mean that the real BiA-lover for the policy is that the first two parts featured: completed. n team takes the enemy under fire; the other team makes a flanking movement and attempts of the Germans through the flanks off. Add to this the next-gen jacket and, of course, the fact that the entire game is in the Netherlands anyway, and you would expect that I, as a shooterliefhebber on the banks stand to jump for joy, with my hands in the air.
That is so not the case. Don’t get me wrong; I still have a lot of meaning to BiA: Hell’s Highway to play but there nibbling at something. Meanwhile there are shooting games that look better, which is a coversysteem know that just a little more smoothly and that more may be damaged than just a few fences. In addition, and that is purely a personal feeling, I have the idea that BiA is a bit of opportunity missed.
It was may 2006 on the E3 when Hell’s Highway for the first time was shown. The demo blew friend and foe over and looked incredible. The months and now years that followed, fooled around Gearbox time and time again with the release date, no doubt to the irritation of publisher Ubisoft. Believe it or not, but yours truly saw Yves Guillemot last year at the Ubidays 2007 quarrel with Gearbox boss Randy Pitchford. Where the quarrel was about I do not know, but the gentlemen were clearly somewhere profound. The release date of BiA perhaps?
Before this column on a Story – or Priv lwa-giswerkje begins to look like, I’d like a theory on the table. If he’s right, I can’t say for sure, but I think I’m fairly close to come. What is the case? Gearbox Software currently has three Triple A shooters in the making: Aliens, Borderlands and Brothers In Arms. Aliens make for SEGA, Borderlands for Take 2, and BiA for Ubisoft. A smart business deal, because, as can Gearbox at each publisher the prize catch. However, Gearbox is not Electronic Arts, and consists of relatively small teams.
Had Gearbox not on Borderlands and Aliens worked, had BiA already appeared. Now, the developer has several projects running, but they are also projects that are very long, will not be waiting. Add to this the salient detail that Ubisoft in the last years Gearbox really would like to buy (what Yves Guillemot smiling admitted during Ubidays 2008) and the case is what concerns me around. Gearbox let with this approach to see not to be dependent on Ubisoft, Pitchford drives through multiple projects, the selling price of his company, and finally with a very thick bag of money back home… if he toko the end anyway just to Ubisoft overdoet.
Again, it is a theory and no one need agree. The only question is whether the three major parallel projects of Gearbox ultimately not at the expense of Brothers in Arms. At the end of August, we know it.