Brothers in Arms: Hell’s Highway apuesta por el rigor histórico y la representación sobria del conflicto por encima del espectáculo. Su mayor acierto es el tono: serio, contenido y respetuoso con el contexto bélico. El juego entiende la guerra como una experiencia tensa y deshumanizadora, y se apoya en una narrativa sólida y bien documentada para sostener esa intención. Sin embargo, a nivel jugable, el sistema es limitado y reiterativo. La escuadra funciona más como herramienta táctica básica que como espacio de verdadera expresión estratégica, y muchas situaciones se resuelven de forma casi automática una vez comprendido el patrón.

I played all games about the series and I can say this game is **** story writting,characters,filosofy under this game,the atrocity about the real events on the Operation Market **** Humanity about this game is something only a few game about the WWII can really rappresent...such a masterpiece for his too bad that ubisoft or gearbox dont create another sequel... P.S I played both versions game of the console

It's been over a decade that I wanted to play Hell's Highway, outside the well-known demo, and finish the game given its name and fame from the fans that, even after many years, I still hear. I got the chance on Xbox 360 with which I recently started playing important and early generation games on the console. Video games with plot set in WWII usually go like this: the stories of characters will be the background to the war, or the other way around. Whatever it will be, the plot must be interesting and catching. In Hell's Highway, maybe because plot is based on a true story, the war is really a powerful background to strictly personal events, which involve its characters. It's easy to empathise with them and the writing is credible and deep. Following the logic of Market Garden operation is more complex. "What is it that makes a great soldier? Is it his brain or his heart?". The answer, maybe obvious maybe not, is somewhere in between, probably. The game's base principle, "suppress and flank", works correctly. Put enemies under suppressive fire from your team and send another team to attack them on the flank. As such, putting enemies under pressure with MG team or Fire team fire is essential. The Assault team can also put suppressive fire but is less effective. Baker himself can also put suppressive fire. Squad members can't kill enemies on medium and long range, even if those are suppressed, but on short range their effectiveness increases. No need to flank suppressed enemies: sending Assault team in their face will be enough to kill them with ease. Consistent with the game's base principle, moving and shortening distances is key to progress. ​As a tactical shooter, the game works: commanding squads efficiently and observing them at work generates satisfaction, a sense of progression. Friend AI works well, even if sometimes gets stuck in the scenario or don't respond to orders. Enemy AI maybe a bit worse, but I saw them retreat as I advanced, move from cover to cover and have good mobility. There's a good variety of WWII weapons and shooting mechanics are solid; switch between the first and third person view (while in cover) is well done and seamless. Cover system itself is also not bad at all and it's nice to see a bit of environmental destructibility with things like wooden fences. Splatter system is good and explosives have devastating effects on bodies. The game offers an effective and convincing reconstruction of the war. Health game mechanic is different. Basically, while being hit, Baker is actually dodging bullets and increasing the risk of being hit. At the peak of exposure to threat, if not in cover, Baker is actually shot dead. Health is not decreasing, your luck is. Definitely an original design choice. While from the player's point of view, it doesn't change much, the problem is shooting and seeing enemy soldiers literally duck down and dodge bullets that should have hit. I don't like it, I understand that shooting means "lowering the enemies' luck and eventually kill them" but when the target gets hit, it just has to take damage, not turn into Max Payne. Hell's Highway is a slow game as it's a tactical shooter seeking realism. Shootings can lead to stalemates if not carried out correctly and can last for a long time. But slowness aside, the game it's woody; Baker is really slow, clumsy and in a cast. Enemy soldiers don't throw grenades (which contrasts realism) because I suppose it would be complicate for the player to avoid them. Also, the player's grenade launch system could have been done better as well. About lack of realism, the game grants too much ammo: I doubt s single soldier could carry such large bulky sets of ammo bandoleers, belts or pouches. The game is still graphically pleasing. Technically, it holds together both a decent environmental destructibility and splatter system. However, characters' faces and cut scenes in general are below expectations, even for a game of the time; they almost seem to come from the generation before. The soundtrack holds up well the epic feel of a WWII game. Ultimately, Hell's Highway is a great game. Critics seem to have been "disappointed" by absence of gameplay variations and alleged repetitiveness. Maybe that's true, but I have to give this game its merits. The ending is deliberately open and we knew recently that a new game is in development: let's hope Gearbox won't make any nonsense and that everything will go smoothly. Another game like Hell's Highway may very well be enough.