Brothers In Arms last conclusions!

Twinkle twinkle little star, oh how I wonder where you are.
Twinkle twinkle little star, oh how I wonder where you are.
Hey everyone! First of all, I just got a new LCD Monitor 24'' ! When I get my PS3 ( hopefully soon ) I will be able to play the games on full HD, hell yeah! I'm as happy as when batman found out that his assistant Alfred had feelings for him.

So, I already wrote a review of BIA:HH . As I said, the game was a great experience and I recommend it to everyone! I'm making this blog just to talk a bit about those that, in my opinion, were the weakest aspects of the game, and how they could maybe been better.

The single aspect that I think that would have made a huge difference is the level design. What do I mean by this? Well, artistically, this game is awesome, I loved the environments, the details, the lightning and the colors of all the levels ( ok, maybe the grass was a bit too green ). What I'm trying to point out is the way the gameplay on the level's was designed.
First of all I think they are a bit too linear - I think they could have added more entrance to houses, more "open" fields, more side pathways. It would be great if you could enter all the houses that you see, it would give it much more strategic depth, like sending one of your squads to the windows in there etc, and it would also give more freedom to the Enemy AI.
There could have been more distruction. The only thing that you can destroy with big firepower ( bazookas per example ) are wood fences ( you can destroy these with normal shots as well ), and sandbags. If other places of cover could be destroyed as well, damn, that would give you a much more intense gameplay. Let's say you have your squad behind a stone wall and the enemy has a bazooka or a tank or whatever, they can fire all they want at the wall, your squad won't die if they are taking cover behind it, and the wall won't take any damage either. This is very easily explored, since once you have your squad behind a safe cover, they won't die and you don't have to worry about them, they will just stay there giving you suppressing fire.
 Now let's imagine the game had a system where like, after 1 bazooka shot, the stone wall, or car truck, or the other indestructible places where you can take cover, would get a bit damaged...the stone wall would start cracking, the car would start getting smoke out of it. Then another bazooka shot and the wall would crack even more, and some parts of it falling apart, or the car would get on fire or something like that. At this point the squad taking cover behind it would scream something like "This cover won't hold for much longer Sir!!!!" (or something like hat), and at this point, you would have to move them, if you didn't, one more shot and the cover would be completely destroyed as well as your squad.
This would make things harder, but also much more fun, you would have to be moving your squads all the time, like in a real war. You would have to be allot faster on disabling the enemy big fire power like tanks and other heavy artillery, or you would be dead, just like in a real war.

Also, the actual music of the game could pop up more times during gameplay, say towards the end of a level, to give you some inspiration and get you even more into the action!

These are the things that I think that would have changed the game drastically and would have certainly make this game superior to other World War 2 shooters. But hey, it's just my opinion! Maybe on the next BIA hehe!

On other things...I've been playing Doom 3, the atmosphere on the game is so intense I can't play it much time straight or I start getting crazy just like Luke Skywalker did when Vader told him that he was his son, and that his mother was a striper on an underground bar in Tattooine.

That's all for now.
May the force be with you