Different: Brothers In Arms Furious 4

It sounds like the relatively austere Brothers In Arms series is moving away from its more realistic beginnings into a realm of CRAZY ACTION, with today’s announcement from Ubisoft: “Set in World War II, Brothers in Arms Furious 4 is a brutal first person shooter that offers an exciting campaign mode playable with up to four players in co-op, as well as an extensive competitive multiplayer mode. The story follows four fierce and fearless warriors tracking the F├╝hrer himself. As one of the Furious 4, players will use special weaponry and unexpected combat abilities to fight the greatest threat the world has ever faced: an experimental Nazi army conceived in secret by the Third Reich.” Experimental Nazi army? Could it have a… Robo-Hitler? Quite possibly, judging by the zany mutilation-happy bar-brawl in this CG trailer.

The game is being developed by Gearbox and released in the “first half” of 2012.


  1. Legionary says:

    Ehhh… what else is on?

    • beatsbydab says:

      open another browser and rite when he says drink up boys start the team america theme song(america f++k yea)it goes perfect with video, if this is with the game is about it mite as well be team america ww2.

  2. Vinraith says:

    *sigh* Why even use the name if you’re not even going to try to make a realistic tactical shooter? Seriously, why not just call it “Furious 4” and be done with it? What is it with “let’s make a game with the name of a series that has gameplay totally unlike that series” business lately?

    • Linfosoma says:

      The most puzzling thing about this is that they are aiming the game to a completely different demographic, so if they are going to piss off the fans of the series why not just call it different?
      I dont see how branding recognition can do anything for a game like this.

    • Maykael says:

      You mean like Ghost Recon, Splinter Cell: Conviction, the Prince of Persia reboot or the recent Rainbow Six games? Fucking Ubisoft…

    • GraveyardJimmy says:

      I completely agree. In the stream he even said what the qualities of BiA were- Storytelling, authenticity etc.

      Then that come out.

    • Zelius says:

      I was just about to post this.

      That said, I do like Prey 2 being called Prey 2 though.

    • wengart says:

      At least with Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, Conviction, and maybe Prince of Persia the games didn’t go from super tactical to batshit insane in one game. They kept a nugget of what once made them great tactical games.

    • Bilbo says:

      It’s about brand awareness and money, and not about art or being anything approaching helpful. This “reveal” was probably the low point of the conference for me, lower even than that fucking irritating presenter

    • Ringwraith says:

      The usual reasons of brand awareness and money don’t seem to apply here though, as Brothers in Arms was a more of a niche title than most shooters, with the emphasis on tactics of suppression and flanking and was more about the characters than the battles, and how they coped with the horrors of war.
      This gives the impression that it has nothing to do with either of those things which made Brothers in Arms so great and recognisable, so seems very counter-productive.

      I usually reserve judgement on things until I actually have first-hand experience, but I’m not very happy about this. Although it might be because I just wanted to know what happened to Baker and the rest of the squad.

    • Bilbo says:

      Trouble is ringwraith they nearly always are niche titles – XCOM, for example. It’s still seen to be more lucrative to stick a name people might’ve heard of on your game than to try and boot a franchise from scratch.

    • lurkalisk says:

      Right. Games don’t matter, legacies do.

      …Unless the game’s good.

    • Zhou says:

      Because: money.

    • oceanclub says:

      I would suggest “Bros in Da Muddafuckin’ Arms 4” (with the 4 backward ‘coz dat is like where da kids is at).


    • Ringwraith says:

      From my perspective, XCOM looks like it has more to do with X-COM than this has to do with the other Brothers in Arms games, as it’s built around the same kind of idea: repelling an alien invasion by using their own tech against them (in a nutshell), just the perspective has changed from eye in the sky to guy on the ground.
      This looks like it will do away with the whole “horrors of war” thing the first ones did so well, as well as throwing out the previous characters of a character-centric series. Although it’s early days yet, the only thing in the common seems to be WWII, so colour me skeptical.

    • Nic Clapper says:

      Ubisoft presents : Falcon 5.0 (featuring transforming planes and dinosaurs!)

  3. JFS says:

    Is this serious? Is this some joke I don’t get? Where there even chainsaws in 1944? Or, to sum it up, what the fuck?

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      Chainsaws were invented in the 1920s! I know this because of a previous chainsaw anachronism thread.

    • pepper says:

      Jim, do you have this often in conversations, and does it freak people out?

    • Jason Moyer says:

      I think the bigger anachronism is the handheld, portable gatling gun.

    • Torgen says:

      An excellent summation. WTF indeed.

    • vatara says:

      Speaking of anachronisms: “Don’t Mess With Texas” was an anti-littering slogan from 1986.

      link to en.wikipedia.org

    • lurkalisk says:

      I’m sure someone could have suggested another not mess with texas prior to the slogan’s use in 1986. We all know that’s generally where it came from, but what does it matter?

    • Nallen says:

      Well it matters because it’s a fucking stupid thing to say in a WW2 game.

    • lurkalisk says:

      Right, I forgot everything needs to be dead serious in videogames now.

      It may not be the funniest thing around, but it’s better than the stale shit we usually get out of our wonderful little industry. The worst part is that anyone cares…

  4. Giftmacher says:

    Surely, this is a joke. Come on, ha ha, we’ve had a laugh, now SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL ME THIS WAS A JOKE!

  5. Ricc says:

    Remember that one scene in Inglorious Basterds? Remember the whole movie, actually? Right.

    • Iokanaan says:

      and then remember Taxi Driver?

    • Sonicberry says:

      And then remember how the only similarity Taxi Driver has to this trailer is Robert de Niro’s mohawk?

    • gausswerks says:

      Tthe guy with the mohawk looks to be inspired by the “Filthy Thirteen,” hotdogging bunch of airborne in WWII that wore mohawks, facepaint, and were known for poor hygiene.
      I am sure someone came across them in the course of the dedicated historical research that brought us the first BIA.

      link to en.wikipedia.org

      I didn’t finish playing the second BIA game–it went halfsies on various predictable concessions to more mainstream shooters with regen health and lower tactical payload, but there was no disguising the deep whiff of boredom coming off that title. Borderlands seemed like the game they’ve been wanting to make for years, and now we will most if not all of their foreseeable future titles somehow in it’s image.

    • Iokanaan says:

      and the jacket?
      but still, remember Taxi Driver?
      good film.

    • apa says:

      This is _very_ Inglorious Basterds.

  6. Schaulustiger says:

    Oh, Randy Pitchford has finally seen Inglourious Basterds.
    *’sigh* Gearbox and their humor…

    EDIT: Oh, I now see that Jim has summarized Gearbox’ humor in the alt text quite well. HAHA NAZIS DIE FUNNY!

  7. Novotny says:

    Is this a Bulletstorm mod then?

  8. pipman3000 says:

    who cares brothers in arms was shit anyway.

    • GraveyardJimmy says:

      I disagree.

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      I also disagree.

    • Navagon says:

      Adding disagreement to the disagreement pile.

    • Giftmacher says:

      Quadruple disagreement!

    • ShowMeTheMonkey says:

      First one was best one….

    • frenz0rz says:

      Make that a quintuple disagreement.

      (I waited a good 5 minutes in the hope that Quinns would make a pun out of that. Alas, I fear the others may have finally killed him out of jealousy of his raw talent…)

    • GraveyardJimmy says:

      All three were great. As near to band of brothers as WW2 Storytelling has got in videos games off the top of my head.

      A long running story about a small group of soldiers with great tactical gameplay is perfect for me. Muiltiplayer wasnt too bad in the first two, but was pretty generic in the third, though passable.

    • Ringwraith says:

      Agreed to disagree, Brothers in Arms had the rare element of a strong focus on the characters in a WWII game, and nothing else quite hit that, although Call of Duty had a fair go.

    • Jason Moyer says:

      Brothers In Arms is one of my favorite game series ever. Having also loved Borderlands, DNF and BiA4 are making me question Gearbox’s status as an insta-buy developer.

    • PoulWrist says:

      Call of Brothers in Arms more like…

    • papabear says:

      you are totally disagreed.

    • bill says:

      I disa…. no, wait, i totally agree. It was horrendous.

      I guess the character-driven story might have kicked in later and caused me to develop an attachment to the men, but I wouldn’t know because I stopped playing after about 3 hours because it was so totally hideous.

      It might have something to do with playing it for the first time this year. Slightly after playing that totally linear corridor ww2 game parody demo for bulletstorm(?). And then finding that it was actually WORSE.

      Cliched characters. Tiny narrow corridors hemmed in by 2 foot fences. Awful iron-sights aiming. Horribly placed checkpoints. (have to sit at a boring stationary gun gunning down guys for five minutes before you can advance. Get killed by random mortar. Have to do it all again). Constantly having to wait at small gates until another character decided to open it for me. Actually totally breaking the game when i managed to get ahead of where I was supposed to be and clear out a barn BEFORE it spawned all the enemies that were supposed to make me fight across the courtyard. Etc..

      I’d somehow managed to miss the whole WW2 shooter thing, other than CoD1 a long time ago. But it was in the steam sale and it seemed like the tactical commands might make it a bit more interesting than Random WW2 Shooter #27.
      But it actually made it worse. Terribly obvious level design that meant everything was: Pin, Flank and everywhere had a convenient 2nd corridor for flanking. But that just made the whole thing so slow and repetitive. i’ve played some poor shooters in my time, but I always thought that even poor shooters were never terrible, as there was always a bit of fun to be had. Yet here there was no way to be creative. No way to deviate from the Pin/Flank route the designers had made for you. And no way to speed things up!
      So so so bad. And the characters seemed pretty poor too, from the small part i saw..

    • Kieron Gillen says:

      Nah, it was great.


    • bill says:

      which part?

    • Lord Byte says:

      Gotta agree with Bill and Pipman, also played a couple of hours and the game is just… tedious. You’re doing exactly the same thing or you do and have to play three-quarters of a level again because the devs hate your guts.
      Set up supression, flank, shoot in back, ad nauseum.

    • Confusatron says:

      I think it has the best iron-sights aiming ever. This is one of the things that set this game apart as a military shooter. I’m not saying it has to be a hardcore simulation, but aiming a gun through the iron-sights doesn’t suddenly turn your arms to solid, immovable rock. Aiming in BiA was hard and a kill felt gratifying. Gearbox completely ruined that with Hell’s Highway, when suddenly aiming through the iron-sights meant you could shoot a mole off a Nazi general from a million miles away.

      The game had its share of faults but the actual combat was the one truly great thing about it.

  9. Text_Fish says:

    I want my scalps.

  10. steamingnewell says:

    They’re afraid of launching a new IP thats why they’re just riding the tails from an existing one.

  11. songkran says:

    I guess this is the point where I get annoying and point out that the phrase “don’t mess with Texas” came from an anti-littering campaign started in 1986.

  12. noclip says:

    And people wonder why the games industry isn’t taken seriously. I wish developers would get over their collective hard on for Hollywood. Here’s a pro-tip: if your game can be described as “(Recent movie): the game” you should be making a movie, not a game. Better yet, you shouldn’t be making anything because the movie has already been made.

  13. skinlo says:

    Good, might make the series interesting now.

  14. frenz0rz says:

    Oh piss off. Seriously? Honestly, it makes me right fucking angry that they could kill off one of my favourite tactical shooters – a series arguably like no other, which I’d really grown to love – and replace it with that. I mean, for god’s sake, just use a different name! That is NOT Brothers in Arms.

    Damnit, I’m quite literally angry with rage! Bah.

    I suppose it might be a fun game, and I have recently been looking for something new in the land of co-op. But to call it Brothers in Arms, and to ruin what I thought was a fairly brilliant series?

    What a shame.

  15. Clavus says:

    How-to-run-a-franchise-into-the-ground by Gearbox Software

  16. JerreyRough says:

    Seems like there are these rediculous shooter games coming out left, right, and center now. Bulletstorm, Overstrike, others I can’t remember, and this. I know i’m terrible for not providing more examples, but I didn’t play that many of them, nor’ paid much attention to them.

  17. Stellar Duck says:

    So, does the game feature intense conversations with Hans Landa? If not, count me out.

  18. Nick says:


  19. Navagon says:

    April fools is that way. Sad how CDPR’s Bard game looked a hell of a lot less like a joke than this.

  20. simoroth says:

    I’m so proud that hundreds of thousands of poor souls died on foreign beaches so gearbox could make this piece of shit.

    I have a feeling someone watched inglorious basterds and utterly missed the point.

  21. juandemarco says:

    No, wait, come on. You’re fucking with our minds and you’re doing so deliberately! In no way would those fine folks at Gearbox take the finest tactical shooter of the last decade and turn into an anonymous FPS with a not so subtle wink to a Tarantino movie.
    Wait, they did. What the flying fuck is going on here?
    Now I just need a ***** dancing game and it’s back to my trustworthy 8+ GB DOS Games Collection for me.

    ***** I was going to put the name of an as-of-now-not-yet-butchered franchise but I couldn’t come up with any. Even XCOM is getting its FPS.

  22. Bodylotion says:

    Sure they may create a fun and humoristic game but using the same title would be a bad mistake. Maybe this new game will be cool but for now i think it’s a childish version of Team Fortress or something. I’m still a bit pissed about Brothers In Arms: Hell’s Highway since my city (eindhoven) could’ve been way better.

  23. grossvogel says:

    I take much more offense at the Gearbox’s choice of soundtrack. Sleigh Bells don’t deserve… this.

  24. ShowMeTheMonkey says:

    I remember the selling point of the first BiA was its realistic tactics and that the environments were painstakingly composed of photos of the time!

    • GraveyardJimmy says:

      Yeah completely. There was one in the first BiA when you start by Dead Mans Corner with a destroyed stuart, taken from a photo (one of the bonus unlocks was a picture of half game, half archive photos).

      I found this when looking for the picture earlier today:

      “As the first American tank reached this intersection and drove toward Carentan, it was struck in the turret by a German rocket. The tank was disabled and the commander was killed. For several days thereafter, the hull remained abandoned at the intersection, with the dead lieutenant hanging out of the turret. The paratroopers at first referred to ‘the corner with the dead guy in the tank’, but soon shortened it to ‘Dead Man’s Corner’, by which name it will always be remembered. ”

      This was the kind of thing that I thought BiA was based around, not ripping off tarantino movies.

    • bill says:

      So the real france was also composed of narrow liner corridors hemmed in by small uncrossable ditches and small unclimbable fences? It must be a pain in the ass being french!

  25. patton says:

    Why would they call this Brothers In Arms ? Previous BIA games were all about tactical squad level WWII combat, and historical accuracy. There is no reason to attach the brothers in arms name to this game. A “humouristic” FPS is not in any way similar to either Road to Hill 30 or Earned in Blood.
    Damn you Ubisoft for being so goddamn stupid.

  26. Rii says:

    Overstrike would seem to scratch the same itch in a far more interesting fashion.

  27. steamingnewell says:

    Hate to repeat myself, but to everyone saying why would they put the brothers in arms name in this game? It’s a valid strategy when launching a new game, sticking a well known brand to its title to help it not completely tank if by itself the game is weak.

  28. Teddy Leach says:

    I hate everything.

  29. magnus says:

    Well I’m buying it when it’s cheaper. Hell, at least that’s less trasparent than saying it’s shit just so you don’t feel guilty torrenting a copy.

  30. Andrew Dunn says:

    So you play some deranged war criminals? I don’t think a single German in that trailer was armed.

    • Rii says:

      They’re in uniform, so they’re fair game.

    • pipman3000 says:

      and german (also fair game (but only if it’s ww1/ww2))

    • JackShandy says:

      Yeah, having them show up and slaughter a huge bunch of defenseless revelers without a even a hint of anyone fighting back was a pretty bad decision. The classic “Massive new threat appears, gang tools up and prepares to attack as trailer fades out” moment occurs against… a guy on the toilet.

      Making a good zany character requires slightly better treading of the line between hero and psychopath.

  31. OJ287 says:

    The only reason that its called that is when they took their idea for Furious Four to their bosses they could make it look less risky by associating it with a successful brand.

  32. Moni says:

    The way I see the appropriation of titles thing is: I don’t care. I doesn’t matter where the name come from, just that it’s good in it’s own right. Complaining about it is snobbery of the third order.

    It’s like, I hear this cool song by this band called Sleigh Bells on a TV advert for a Microsoft phone, so I look up Sleigh Bells, I listen to all their albums and I really get into them. Sometime later I’ll be talking to a like-minded person about how much I like Sleigh Bells, then they’ll ask: “How did you hear about them?” Upon hearing my story they’ll start telling me that I’m not a real fan, because my fandom came from a different place; that they had heard of the band before they were big, when they just had a little EP that was handed out at concerts; that they’re a real fan, and I should go fuck off and die.

    • Mattressi says:

      So, what you’re really talking about, is how we should feel about Gearbox, now that they’ve gone “mainstream”.

      Comparing a game franchise’ title to a band’s name is simply absurd – the game franchise can be terminated at any point by the people who made it and those same people can start a new one or even make them concurrently, while people in a band would seem quite insane to “disband” their band and then reform it with a different name or to start a new band alongside their old band, but with the exact same band members and just a different name.

    • Nick says:

      I think you’ll find it’s not really like that at all.

  33. bleeters says:

    This must be what going mad feels like.

    I suppose since they’re American, they won’t sound like the demo man and heavy as much as two of them seem to physically resemble them. That’s something, I guess.

  34. Sigma Draconis says:

    Having not played any Brothers in Arms games, it’s not the shift towards an over the top/ridiculous tone of Furious 4 that bothers me. Though, from what little I know of the series (I certainly don’t remember the games being this silly), I think long time fans have good reason to complain about that.

    What bothers me is this teaser makes Furious 4 seem like it’s going to be “Inglorious Basterds: The Game”. And even THAT concept seems more interesting than what’s being presented here.

  35. Anton says:

    Aldo The Apache? =P

  36. Sir-Lucius says:

    Inglorious Borderlands.

    I fail to see how this game bears any relation to the original Brothers in Arms games at all.

  37. Mavvvy says:

    I wonder if you can play as the “Indoctrinated” in 4v4.

  38. poop says:

    something tells me that nobody at gearbox really got inglorious basterds when they saw it

  39. Owain_Glyndwr says:

    Does anyone else think that veering from serious wartime drama with a focus on realism to a Inglorious Basterds/Left 4 Dead ripoff is grossly inappropriate, if not downright insulting?

    Read Tim Stone’s Grognard Guilt article if you have not already done so, then watch this again.

    • _Jackalope_ says:

      Yeah, when I saw this I was thinking “Oh sweet irony”. I posted on the article commenting that Brothers in Arms was so emotionally engaging that I couldn’t bring myself to complete it, I found it so upsetting. This is a travesty. Before seeing the video, if I’d been told that there was a BIA which was going to be a 4 player co-op I’d imagine something along the lines of Hidden & Dangerous, where each player has to carefully time their own objectives to pull off a mission. This trailer even manages to do Inglorious Basterds a disservice as that wasn’t just a Nazi snuff film, it was about cinema itself and had many themes running throughout.

    • RogB says:

      yeah, i thought of that grognard article immediately. That trailer just feels… icky.
      I probably wouldnt have given a shit as a kid, but found that quite uncomfortable to watch.
      i must be getting old…

  40. Zwebbie says:

    Theoretically, it’s not a bad idea. Some problems I had with the original BiA were that it was character driven, but it was at the same time pretty hard to differentiate 10 very similar characters. Secondly, the game’s unrealistic expectations (“Baker, we need you to destroy an entire panzer division!”) didn’t mesh well with its supposed realism and attention to historical detail. I’ve been strafing tanks! Thirdly, weapon variation wasn’t all that great, and I’d usually use a Kar/MP40 combination until I’d find a BAR. The few times you were given different weapons, such as a static machine gun or the sniper rifle, were a refreshing change, so having a more varied arsenal built into the character structure doesn’t sound like a bad idea.
    In theory, it could be a character-driven, strategic TF2, or a first person Commandos.
    In theory. It’s 2011, though, so I’m not expecting anything other than juvenile health-regenerating whack-a-mole game.

    • steamingnewell says:

      That was kinda the whole point, making it realistic, which transfers into making it somewhat “boring”. I remember an interview with randy pitchford commenting that games like CoD have their market, and they were not trying to make that, they were going at a completely different approach with Brothers in Arms. Interesting how things change.

    • Ringwraith says:

      That’s the thing about Brothers in Arms, those things that you’re expected to do? They’re not unrealistic at all.
      Remember that mission in Road to Hill 30 where you clear out an entire village of German forces with only a single guy as backup? It actually happened.

    • GraveyardJimmy says:

      Ring, I remember reading about that XYZ house clearance in one of Stephen Ambroses books, then realising it was very much like the BiA section, right down to them sitting down in the final farmhouse having dinner.

      Also, I dont think the expectations were unrealistic. In the final mission in the first BiA (SPOILERS) you are forced to go solo, hiding from tanks as you go past, then meet up with 2 shermans, who you use to flank the german tanks and even then it took me a lot of tries not to lose a tank and to survive on authentic difficulty. In the tank fights you mainly had to sit out of the way (in this mission)

  41. Scare Tactics says:

    Please just go bankrupt Ubisoft, we don’t want you around anymore…please..

  42. _Nocturnal says:

    The video says it’s going to be rated 18+.
    But… wouldn’t this be an insult to anyone over 18?

  43. Iokanaan says:

    scheisse indeed!

  44. Schmitzkater says:

    This might be the first time for me to hope a computer game will NOT be finished, and just die a quick death on the cutting room floor.
    I mean come on! So you saw Inglourious Basterds, found it oh-so-badass, still want to make more Borderlands and grab any completely unrelated title just to get some brand recognition?
    I actually fail to see the humour in that.

  45. Grey says:

    Even Hidden & Dangerous 2 is better than this mainstreamed stuff.

    • GraveyardJimmy says:

      What do you mean eve? Hidden and Dangerous 2 was fantastic, I still have it installed on my computer!

  46. shoptroll says:

    Apparently 3 of the 4 characters are named after Disney properties…

    Hannah Montana
    Davey Crockett
    Stitch (as in Lilo & Stitch)


  47. frenz0rz says:

    I seem to remember not too long ago reading that Ubisoft had cut a number of undisclosed games from development. At the time, I was desperately worried about two games – a Brothers in Arms sequel, and Beyond Good and Evil 2.

    As many (including myself) have noted above, this is clearly not the BiA we know and love. Perhaps a ‘proper’ sequel was in development, but was either cancelled or dramatically overhauled to give a broader appeal – presumably to the console market. I can only pray that my second fear does not also come true…

  48. Guiscard says:

    Franchise positively ruined. Brothers in Arms: Hell’s Highway showed exactly how war games should treat their characters: the set-piece battles didn’t matter though they had their place, the purpose was to show the emotional journey of the soldiers – something Medal of Honour, Call of Duty and just about every other action game based on the Second World War has failed abysmally to do. There was an actual tangible story. It was also ended on a note that demanded the continuation of those characters’ stories. Plus, the gameplay was solid; bar the random arcade tank moments, it was perfect.
    This is just anathema to all of that. This isn’t BiA, it seems that some idiot doing Duke Nukem Forever at Gearbox watched Inglorious Bastards and then decided to copy it. Why even call it BiA if your not going to use anything at all that makes the franchise what it is. This may well have its place, but not under the BiA name.

  49. Jinkeez says:

    The thing that bothers me most about this trailer is that the German officer is shitting–while still wearing his hat and leather jacket, by the way–in a bathroom which has no sink, and which opens directly into the pub. Eew.

  50. Basilicus says:

    This was a valuable franchise that once strived toward the meaningful, historical, and artful. I don’t know what it is now. No, wait, I do: an ad campaign to get me never to buy a Gearbox game again. So far, it’s working.