User Reviews

Having played both Road To Hill 30 and this game, it was an enjoyable experience, but not without flaws.

Story: 10/10 The story was the reason that made me want to play both games, to see how it was like being in the battles given in the games. In Earned In Blood, the story was told in flashback sequences while Sergeant Joe Hartsock is being interviewed by Colonel S.L.A. Marshall. The first half of the game is devoted to missions that didn't make the cut in Road To Hill 30 while the second half is devoted to the ending at Carentan and beyond that point.

Gameplay: 7/10 The core elements from the first game are there, but the enemies are smarter and will try to counter-flank the player's moves. As for new additions, Hartsock will now be able to get ammo from his squad-mates, provided that he still has weapons belonging to Allied Forces (like the M1 Garand rifle for example). The only con is that the squad-mates are more often than not idiots compared to Road To Hill 30. Squadmates do not take cover when ordered to, and are known to stand in front of the line of fire in general.

Sound 10/10 The voice acting, soundtrack, and effects are superb and fit the atmosphere of the game.

Having already purchased 'Road to Hill 30' I already had a certain idea what this game would be like. I thought it was be from where the first game stepped off but slightly 'polished' with the strange PS2 'death-glitch' removed.

I was half right. 'Earned in Blood' definitely improves gameplay-wise from the first in the series with the WWII realism perfectly maintained and even made to feel better, what with the enemy AI actually trying to outwit most of the time. The graphics too are okay, better than the original but that's as far as it goes.

The Cons of the game? Provided you care about what's going on between the action of the gameplay, it seems to be the same plot line as 'Road to Hill 30', with the exception of the last few missions, only this time told from a sub-character from the first game. Does it matter? Not really. But the game more or less has the same sort of missions as 'Road to Hill 30' and the level layouts are hardly different to the original as well.

Okay, certainly not as grand or great as most War first-person-shooters, but still in the top 10 if there was one. 'Earned in Blood' may not live up the greatness of its predecessor but it still has its own podium to stand on.

Think of it like 'Prince of Persia 1 and 2'.'Sands of Time' was top of its 'game' and in some way was similar to 'Road to Hill 30' because it was the first true WWII shooter out there. Then after 'Sands of Time' came 'Warrior Within' which was a bit of a letdown because it had none of the 'zaz' of the original. It was a good game in its own right but it still different, maybe darker, which made it feel less than fantastic to the buyer. The same goes for 'Earned in Blood'.

Had it not been one in a series, then it would definitely be a top game. Because the first was so brilliant and new, the second had a lot to aspire and be like as many other sequels have to face when they reach the shelves.

Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood is meant to be a game of tactical combat rather than a full-on battle game, but it still is pretty darn irritating. The country settings are beautifully recreated and the weapons are very well-done, but this game would be impossible if there were no checkpoints, and irritates straight from Level 1. The game has a huge number of missions, and offers far more than the likes of Black or Conflict: Desert Storm, but those games are better because you actually stand a chance in them. Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood is more realistic than any other war game I own, but it has to be realistic in a way that won't irritate and will engage. Also, the Germans are so damn hard to hit, and kill you with one hit from their rifle. Why so unfair? This game has the graphical and gameplay qualities of the Call of Duty series, but is far more irritating, and offers a much less intense experience. It is good, but not great. 7/10

I just finished this game recently and thought it was very good. But some things about this game were disappointing. First of all, when the first Brothers in Arms(BiA) was released, it was very highly acclaimed because of its extreme realism and authenticity. Squad control, unlike most games, was simple, effective, and very easy to pick up.

Now i loved the first one. I bought it about two weeks ago and finished it. I loved it so much, i bought the second one without consulting any reviews on how it was, and if it was any good. Right from the bat, it felt very familiar. Maybe too much so. In fact, i don't even consider this be a real sequel. It has the exact same controls, the exact same feel, and not enough mission objective variants. The graphics were exactly the same a well. They aren't bad , but its nothing incredible The game stresses how important it is to "fix the enemy", then "flank them". But the encounters are so straightforward and linear, the developers basicallyset the flank up for you.

It might sound like I disliked the game, but i didn't at all. I enjoyed the new features, however few they are. First is the two new weapons. The "grease gun" and the FG42(which i love by the way). The A.I. is significantly better. People complained the enemies in the first one were to stationary. These enemies, flank you. And if they notice you are flanking them, they will relocate to a new position to where you have to rethink your strategies. The urban fights are intense and enjoyable. A nice change from the familiar countryside.

The story wasn't as interesting as the first one. This time you play as Hartsock and you recount your battles since the drop to Col. Marshall. The voice acting is superb. Especially Hartsock. And there are more inside jokes this time round as well. And the musical score is inspirational, from movies like Band of Brothers and Saving Private Ryan. And earlier I stated the graphics were nothing special. But there is somrhting about this games graphics that I thought was wonderful. The faces of your squadmates. Each teammate has a distinctive face. Unlike most FPS's whewre the character models are re-used over and over again. Not in Brothers in Arms. Just the way they look, especially the eyes, oh my gosh the eyes. They look at you like they really are waiting for your orders. And by the end of the game, your men will all probably have blood-shot eyes, and dirt all over their face. All in all Earned in Blood provides a great experience to play as the 101st airborne. If you enjoyed the first one, i recommend this title, but if you are used to the run and gun style shooting, i suggest you rent this one first.

This game is the second best war game to ever be made so far. I think the first would be Brothers in Arms: Road to hill 30. Anyway in this game you take control of Hartsock (the soldier that was promoted in Brothers in Arms Road to hill 30 at the end). You play in Hartsock's point of view not Baker's. Hartsock is being interviewed because of his promotion and he tells the story as you play through it. Though the story of road to hill 30 was better this is more realistic. You can take ammo from your troops and the enemy's now react to what you do so flanking them will be much harder.

Excellent game 9/10

I picked up a copy of Earned in Blood a week ago, and I'm not done yet. But so far, it feels basically like a story continuation of Road to Hill 30. Of course, AI and the upgrades are there, but unlike some sequels like Halo 2, which turned into a completely new game: completely different graphics, some completely new weapons...

But if you loved the first, the second is a must buy.

If you're a World War 2 fan, this is for you. If you like tactical shooters, this is for you. If you like Run 'n Gun... well, you can always learn to love it, like me. I went from a hardcore Halo player, to a more strategic and slower-paced Brothers and Arms.