Brothers In Arms: Furious 4 Revealed at Ubisoft Press Conference

Ubisoft's Brothers in Arms franchise was conceived as a respectful, measured take on the events of WWII, portraying combat as violent, pointless, and damaging to lives of the individual soldiers. It was a terrific, well designed series… and it nearly killed developer Gearbox, who came back from the brink of closure with the wildly successful FPS RPG Borderlands, a game that could not be farther in tone from Brothers In Arms more grounded origins.

Now, Ubisoft has announced that it wants to inject some of that inappropriate, out of control lunacy into its more subdued Brothers in Arms series… along with a healthy dose of Quentin Tarantino-inspired content.

That mishmash of Tarantino, Borderlands, and Ubisoft has produced Brothers in Arms: Furious 4, a new FPS due in the first half of 2012. Proving that Inglorious Bastards gave creators the luxury of making fun of Hitler, Brothers in Arms; Furious Four is a first person shooter where players will use miniguns, branding irons, cattle prods and tomahawks to take down the Third Reich

Ready to take the Tomahawks to the Fuhrer? You'll have to wait until next year to play it on the 360, PS3 and PC. Also, Furious 4, Aliens: Colonial Marine and Duke Nukem Forever, Gearbox's plate is full to bursting. This all but guarantees that we won't be hearing anything about a Borderlands sequel for a good long time.

I just got to say that this game is looking awesome. If your going after the quality Gearbox puts in the BiA-series, it is at worst very promesing.

What have they done to brothers in Arms? Hating the trailer at least.

Wow, I'm actually just playing through the BIA games. And if you add some Tarantino into that mix, I'm down with that.

Why call it a Brothers in Arms game when it is the exact opposite of what those titles were all about?

Seems like an odd decision, but I did enjoy Inglorious Basterds, and from what I hear Brothers in arms are pretty good, so it could turn out okay.

@S0ndor said:

Why call it a Brothers in Arms game when it is the exact opposite of what those titles were all about?

This.

Kind of weird to slap the Brothers In Arms games title on there...even they weren't known for their First Person Shooter stuff as much as being a tactical game. Oh well they are a good developer so we'll see where this goes...4 person co-op perhaps?

What did they do to my Brothers in Arms?????Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

This kind of goes against everything Brothers in Arms stood for, which is to say authentic, historically accurate, tactical gameplay and deep and emotional story telling.

Why use the Brothers in arms franchise?? was that Ubisoft's decision?

The Brothers in Arms brand name isn't even that strong.

Fuck this game. I want a real BiA game.

@The_Joker said:

@S0ndor said:

Why call it a Brothers in Arms game when it is the exact opposite of what those titles were all about?

This.

This again. While BIA was still at it's core about having fun shooting dudes, it also had a reverence and respect for the material. This is just making a mockery of that.

Oh well, it's their name, I guess.

The idea of Inglorious Basterds mixed with Borderlands co-op I'm totally cool with.

Using the Brothers in Arms name with the game? Totally not cool with.

THIS is the kind of WWII game I can get behind!

Borderlands in arms! Woooo

Fuck this game. I want a real BiA game.

Man, fuck Ubisoft. There isn't a video game related company this generation that I hate more than them. Thanks for ruining some of my favorite franchises such as Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six, Splinter Cell and now Brothers in Arms! (though the last one already took a more casual path) You guys are fantastic, really.

They should be ashamed of putting the BiA name on this. I'm no prude, Don't care about your "no russian"'s and what not, but this is just a big, disrespectful slap in the face to that franchise. They've lost their mind putting the BiA name on this...

Even if this didn't have the BIA tag on it, I could not be any less interested in this game.

While the idea of this game itself is pretty cool, this is not at all what I wanted to see from the next BiA game. This is basically WWII with Borderlands' attitude. I'd really like to know the reasoning behind the decision to shift the series in this direction.

People still care about anything World War II?

Feel sorry for the fans that have been speculating for the last 2+ years...http://forums.gearboxsoftware.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20
 
Favourite quote: " I'm going to take a guess and say that Colonel Antal's expertise won't be utilized as much for this title."

I'll reserve judgment for when I see it in action.

Hoooooly hell what a travesty. Wow. I'm not looking for hyperbole here, this just honestly makes me so disappointed and a bit sad.
 
I just really "love" the irony here... at a time when the other big WWII games (and hell, even now the big Modern War games...) were pretty much directly ripping off Hollywood for half of their random setpiece-based missions, particularly those big, iconic ones, the original Brothers In Arms were focused on producing well-researched, reasonably original historical battles with a solid stab at authenticity. Sure, they were still about American paratroopers on D-Day+X, but at least it was the story of a company that hadn't been all over any movies or miniseries or other shooters.
 
And now... well,  the other "real war" shooter franchises have moved onto becoming their OWN crazy over-the-top action war flicks, and the new game to carry the BiA name is apparently a cartoony ultra-violent Inglorious Basterds ripoff. With a *record scratch* in the trailer. Ugh.
 
But anyway, now that that's out of me the real reason I had to comment on this was to ask what this business of Gearbox ever being on the brink of closure is about? And because of the BiA series, no less? The original games seemed to be quite successful by all accounts, and while Hell's Highway certainly had plenty of steps back for every step forward (oh the tragic loss of the brilliant, truly inventive multiplayer of the originals), it still seemed generally well-received. Were sales really that poor?

@SpudBud said:

Fuck this game. I want a real BiA game.

When I heard the words 'Brothers in Arms' I put the press conference on pause, went to my kitchen to fix my self an ice cream cone, and when I resumed only to see this team fortress goes WW2, I lost my appetite.

That was quite the curveball, I was ready for Battle of the Bulge.

Oh, I just remembered The Outfit !

Dear god that sounds terrible.  It's a quality franchise, they should have stuck with what they had. 

Fuck you.

I hate everything about this... and I was a huge fan of the BIA games. Who is going to buy this?

fuck

This is the worst.

@Butano said:

The idea of Inglorious Basterds mixed with Borderlands co-op I'm totally cool with.

Using the Brothers in Arms name with the game? Totally not cool with.

This.

I mean BiA was the only WWII shooter with good storytelling and with compelling gameplay mechanics. BiA is a franchise that earned its reputation with a respectful tone and serious storytelling. I was sitting here thinking a BiA game could do Vietnam justice, something I don't think any other series is capable of. I feel like all they're doing is hurting the brand, not helping it. With that in mind we the civilians can't really know the higher up decisions and back door arguments that must have gone on. Maybe they're feeling a Bad Company itch they need to scratch, then it's back to being serious.

Again I'm down with what the game is but it's just strange that they're calling it Brothers in Arms. However I think this may prove to beneficial in the end if only it brings attention to how much people like a serious BiA game setting one up after Furious 4 gets released.

Looks fucking awesome!

@S0ndor: Excatly though this is a spin off.Which would give people who never played it the wrong impressions.I guess it is good though to let experiment, of course I will just wait till the Battle of the Bulge one gets announced to go back to Baker's story.

I'd really like to know the reasoning behind the decision to shift the series in this direction.

Looks like an Insult to Costumers Intelligence... Sorry I sound so thigh ass, but It does.. WTF Gearbox you better than this!!

I bet this is pretty close to what went down: 
 
Gearbox makes a solid 4 player co-op shooter with a crazy cast of characters in a WWII setting 
Ubisoft forces them to use the BiA name  
 
I don't mind this game as long as we get to see the ending of the original BiA storyline sometime in the future.

It is just hilarious because this game is exactly the opposite of what BiA is all about. Has a fan based ever been so tricked before??

Like I said above, I'd be willing to bet money on Gearbox having nothing to do with the name.

It is amazing how much that is 'borrowing' from Inglorious Bastards.

I am excited to see more on the game, but I cant help wondering why they didnt make a new series with this game. I understand the branding aspect, but I dont think Brothers in Arms was so strong a brand that it warranted keeping it around. I think they missed a bit of an opportunity there.

I am excited to see more on the game, but I cant help wondering why they didnt make a new series with this game. I understand the branding aspect, but I dont think Brothers in Arms was so strong a brand that it warranted keeping it around. I think they missed a bit of an opportunity there.