Reviews and Problems with Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood
Showing 1-10 of 17
Different take on the WWII first-person shooter
8 July 2008
Summary: Overall, this game is great. It brings to the table what the first game in the series introduced, the ability to command additional AI units. There is a lot of additional strategy involved (i.e. flanking, suppressing fire, armor units, etc.).
Summary: This is a very awesome fps. it has a good and long storyline that will keep you entertained for a while. Some flaws are lag. when you get in a big fire fight / alot of shooting, it slows down. also, when you kill someone, you know because it lags a bit.
Summary: This game is way better - WAY BETTER - than Road to Hill 30. There have been many improvements. The levels are larger, the enemies are smarter, and there's co-op play. It also features a skirmish mode that lets you play as Germans and Americans.
Summary: This is my first World War II game and i like it. Its good nearly (but not quite) great.if i had to rate it out of 10 it would be a 7.9/10. I have heard of Medal Of Honor and Call Of Duty but never played them nor have i played BIA:Road To Hill 30(BIA:RTH30).
Summary: Lets start off by saying this is not like the first one, it may seem like it but the story is 100% different you play sgt. hartsock, and in the beginning you talk to a guy about what happened at road to hill 30, and what happened those three days and what not.
Summary: The original game in the series (road to hill 30?) is not too different from this sequel, so the review applies to that game as well. The core concept is the use of 1 or 2 squads (depending on the mission): a fire (support) team that's to be used to suppress an enemy, and an assault team to be used...
Summary: Pretty good. Don't like the burden of having a squad to contend with but, some players must. I prefer one-person shooters and whilst this is good in settings and action it should have been just that - a first person shooter game.