Brothers In Arms Furious 4 A “Test Bed”

According to this article on Giant Bomb, Gearbox are saying that the original, serious story for Brothers In Arms might not be over, and that the wacky craziness evident in the Furious 4 trailer is simply a “test bed” for a new direction. The tale of staff sergeant Matthew Baker, on which the earlier parts of the franchise were based, is apparently set to continue. Perhaps when we’ve finished our long facepalm regarding Furious 4? Something like that.

Phew, maybe.


  1. Olivaw says:

    I liked Gearbox before they went crazy.

    And I’ll continue to like them after it passes.

    But boy, right now? They’re very crazy!

    And I love crazy, sometimes.

  2. wodin says:

    Is this backpeddeling after the reaction they’ve had about it I wonder….

    Not sure why you would put that vid out and then say it isn’t the game it’s for another game?!

  3. Strangineer says:

    Inglorious Basterds, the game… Just say it.

    • Multidirectional says:

      That’s “Inglourious Basterds”. Just saying. Most people get it wrong.

  4. Jim Rossignol says:

    It looks like it was just marketing fuck up. They should have just announced it as new IP.

    • Gunrun says:

      This seems to be Ubisofts “thing” though, taking a known IP and massively changing it in a sequel. See also Far Cry 2, Splinter Cell Conviction, Rainbow Six Vegas, Prince of Persia the one that was a cartoony mess, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter.

    • GraveyardJimmy says:

      I think if it was announced as a new IP, it might actually have had a fairly positive reaction. There are many people (though I am not one of them) who are tired of the WW2 setting and this is a change of direction for the setting.

    • BooleanBob says:

      Strange isn’t it? I agree wholeheartedly with most of the comments made in this thread. But I think, for a profit-facing mega-publisher like Ubi, brand recognition has to trump these complaints of continuity and IP fidelity that we – after all a relatively small proportion of the potential market of buyers for the game – will raise.

    • Ringwraith says:

      Although I see more connection with those series Ubisoft has taken a different direction in with some titles than between this and the previous Brother in Arms games. They at least retain the same core ideas.

      This on the other hand? Seems to be only related by being set in WWII, so as such I don’t understand it.

    • JohnnyMaverik says:

      I have to agree. I know Gearbox are “wacky” but they’re not stupid, far from it. Tagging Brother’s In Arms onto this game has

      1. turned off everybody who likes that series
      2. turned off everybody who doesn’t.

      Ubisoft on the other hand are stupid with an alarming regularity, so yea, well done marketing division, 8/10 on the scale of bad ideas.

      Brand recognition isn’t a good thing when people look at a new game and either go “I like that brand, that isn’t it, wtf?” or “I don’t like/don’t particularly care about that brand so meh to that”.

  5. lurkalisk says:

    I would be mildly amused to see this become the permanent direction for the series, even if just for the reactions such a thing would get. You know, the tirades about tactical tactics and how older games are lost to time, so they’re stuck with this new thing they hate merely for the tone of it (and lack of Xtreme, visceral tactical decisioning).

  6. YeOldeSnake says:

    Heres hope it got open world and stealth elements

  7. Fuxalodapus says:

    Kind of like Battlefield Heroes was to Battlefield series only darker?

    Is that Hey Ash Watcha Playing guy still writing for them? I’m convinced he’s single handedly responsible for Gearbox insanity…

    • RagingLion says:

      Yeah I think Anthony Burch is still there as far as I know. Personally the kind of effect I’m hoping he has is more meaningful story elements given his excellent Rev Rants series.

      This news seems to me to be simply a straightforward case of no developer/publisher ever calling an end to a franchise – in this case the normal style of game in a franchise.

    • Protagoras says:


      Seriously though, I like Anthony, HAWP is pretty funny (ash is simultaneously pretty homely and amazing hot) , and I like the points they make on the podcast – but ASTW was pretty meh all along,except for a couple of good sequences.
      As for him being related to this, given that he only joined GB around mid 2010 (afair), I doubt he’ll have much to do with stuff until 2012 releases (assuming 2 year cycles at least). Though I may be just talking out of my ass here.

  8. StoneMason says:

    Maybe all the serious, sensible people are at work making sure Colonial Marines is clammy hands inducing.

    As for Furious 4, I don’t care. Inglorious Basterds was just about all the Nazi torture I could take but at least it was trying to say something.

  9. poop says:

    Im starting to get annoyed that sequelitis is bleeding into games that shouldnt even be bloody sequels

    • Darko Drako says:

      Very very stupid idea. This is only going to annoy people. It would have made much more sense to have released this as a new ip. would have been received much more positively as well seeing as there are so many sequels these days.

  10. WJonathan says:

    How about they just cut the crap and tell us what they’re doing. Software publishers are getting a little too responsive to internet chatter. In the sense that they’re telling us what they think we want to hear, as opposed to what’s actually going on.

  11. Unaco says:

    These guys try to do something new, and all they get is negativity.

    • Acorino says:

      What, should we hand out points for effort now?

    • Unaco says:

      We could commend them for trying something different, rather than generic, “Band of Brothers” World War 2 action.

    • Acorino says:

      With something different you mean slighty “inspired” by Inglorious Basterds, I guess?

    • Unaco says:

      No. By different, I mean something different from what they’ve done before… something different than the game’s predecessors.

      And as for this being ‘inspired’ by ‘Inglorious Basterds’… I can see it, but I’m not seeing the straight rip off that some people seem to be seeing. Yes, it’s about a slightly unconventional group behind enemy lines killin’ Nazis… But I remember plenty of films from the 60s/70s with similar plots. Yes, the player characters seem like caricatures or stereotypes that we’ve likely seen before, but that’s a common thing to do, to use character archetypes… and it’s never raised that many complaints when used in games like Commandos: Behind Enemy Lines. Yes, in the trailer they’re killing Nazis in a bierhall or whatever, and yes, in ‘IB’ there is a similar scene… but I seem to remember in the film it didn’t go quite so well, wasn’t intentional and wasn’t quite as one sided. Also, remember, most of ‘Inglorious Basterds’ was ‘inspired’ by other movies.

      As far as I can see, this is ‘inspired’ by ‘Inglorious Basterds’ in the same way that the prior games were ‘inpired’ by ‘Band of Brothers’.

    • Mattressi says:

      Is there an issue with negativity? If they try something new, why bother “trying” it if all they should ever get is a positive response? If we’re just meant to say “oh great, something new!”, they really aren’t “trying” anything – “trying” implies that there is some kind of testing-of-the-waters involved.

      This attempt that they’ve made has garnered an overwhelmingly negative reaction, showing that they missed the mark with this one (more so, that they screwed up by giving it the BiA title). Now shoo, troll.

    • Unaco says:


      Don’t tell me to shoo, and don’t call me a troll. How am I trolling? Please, explain to me why you consider what I’m saying trolling? If you can’t, kindly do not throw accusations like that about.

      No, there’s no issue with negativity itself… but I think there’s a problem with the negativity here. All of the negativity is directed at the ‘style’ and aesthetic of the game, not about the game itself, because we know very little about that, and have only seen a CGI trailer.

      I don’t think the game should be praised because they are trying a different style… but I also don’t think it should be dismissed because it doesn’t look like what we’d expect from the franchise.

    • pepper says:

      The negativity is aimed at the fact that this is NOT BIA. There is absolutely no connection with any of the earlier titles, and it feels more like they are taking the piss out of there fanbase.

      The game itself, could be pretty good for all we know.

    • nadeus says:

      That’s exactly the problem, this will be know as the official ‘NOT’ BiA game in the series, they should just name is furious 4, or “the funny BiA-engined-based-inspired by inglorious bastards movie-spin-off-also know as bad marketing”, because that’s just what I make of this.

      game seems fun though, but please, don’t offend the fans of the BiA-franchise by putting out something not Bia-ish, it’s one of the best games we’ve had in the last 8 years!

  12. Acorino says:

    Releasing a sequel that has little in common with its predecessors worked so well for Leisure Suit Larry, right?

  13. CaptainHairy says:

    See, as I have no prior investment in the Brothers in Arms IP, I can only see this game as a good thing. If this was another standard AMERICAN SHOOTING MAN WHO IS QUITE GOOD AT HIS JOB SHOOTS GERMAN MEN WHO OUTNUMBER HIM game, there would be no way in hell that I could even muster the interest to comment about it.

    I hope the negativity that has been expressed in various corners about this change in direction doesn’t dissuade Gearbox from producing this game, as I am, for the first time since the initial release of Company of Heroes, actually interested in a game set in World War 2.

  14. Rii says:

    Overstrike looks better.

    And less offensive on multiple levels.

  15. ScubaMonster says:

    The title reminds me of Fast 5, which is worse than whatever silliness is going on in the game.

  16. Jimbo says:

    Did you see Dandy Pitchfork announcing this in the Ubisoft conference? Ugh it was just the worst. It was like the “Final Fantasy 14! ……… Online” moment from a couple years ago, except for a franchise I actually care about.

  17. HeavyHarris says:

    Glad to see I’m not the only one who was offended by the title.

  18. studenteternal says:

    never played BiA, thought the trailer just looked stupid though, course I did not like IngloriousBastards either, I thought it a rather simple minded juvenile revenge fantasy. Seemed like something written by a 11 year old boy.

    Now that you all know my opinion, you can go back to your regular business.