um dos melhores jogos de segunda guerra de todos os tempo
se você já viu band of brothers da hbo esse jogo é basicamente quase uma adaptação da série já que ele tem uma ótima narrativa e trilha sonora
tem um sistema de micro gerenciamento de tropas em tempo real que torna sua experiencia no jogo deiferente de qualquer shooter de segunda guerra do mercado desde a época em que foi lançado até hoje fazendo com que voce se importe com seus subordinados ja que o sucesso da sua missão depende do quão bem voce os lidera e a vida deles depende da sua liderança
esse mesmo sistema faz com que voce sinta o peso de suas mortes e os breves momentos em que há uma tranquilidade o carisma de todos os 13 soldados acabam te cativando e suas mortes te impactam
a guerra é retrata de uma forma bem crua e real com poucos romantismos e tem os extras com o making off do jogo onde mostra todo o carinho que a gearbox colocou no jogo com pesquisa de campo, estudos historicos e etc
se voce curte uma boa historia e quer jogar algo diferente de um super soldado fodão matando nazistas brothers in arms é o seu jogo

VAI SE FODER UBISOFT POR TER MATADO A FRANQUIA EMPRESA DE MERDA

Feels like this game doesn't really know what it wants to be.

Not enough control over your squad mates, bad AI and simple objectives makes it a poor strategic shooter compared to Hidden and Dangerous, Rainbow Six, etc. Inaccurate guns, clunky gunplay and uninspired level design make it a poor linear FPS.

It's one of the more immersive WWII shooters and there is fun to be had but I just felt annoyed a lot of the time.

Decent shooter with tactical elements and a strong narrative that pretty much carries the whole game.

Commanding your squad and using suppression to flank enemies is a nice change of pace compared to what other shooters did at the time. Unfortunately, the game gets extremely frustrating towards the end, since enemies will pre-fire you around corners and wipe your teammates even while being fully suppressed. It doesn't help that your squad AI often gets lost and might be taking cover on the wrong side or just standing out in the open.

As mentioned previously, the story is definitely the most enjoyable part of the game. Though I wish they would've expanded on this aspect a bit more. I think the game could've benefitted from some downtime in-between combat scenarios where your squad could banter, since now you're moving from one shooting gallery to the next.

It's worth playing, though I'd recommend to lower the difficulty on later chapters to make it more fair.

World War II shooters were everywhere, but Ubisoft and Gearbox took a dangerous risk and released one so late in the game. 2005 was a year where WWII shooters were at their peak and when gamers hated them the most. Brothers in Arms proved to be a more authentic and smarter shooter and won fans of the genre over.

Gearbox painstakingly recreated Carentan and many parts of France where the 101st Airborne Division landed on D-Day. The game also uses squad tactics and realism unlike any other WWII shooter out there. You will notice when you play how well the guns feel when you shoot them, and how you can’t nail an enemy from 100 feet away with a Thompson. You have to flank the enemy or you die. It’s that simple and that difficult. Red circles will appear above enemy squads. You can issue commands to your squads to suppress them. Their circle will turn gray and then it is safe to move up and find cover around the area to flank them. It sounds simple, but it’s not. Your squadmates can die and so can you if you aren’t careful. You have to watch out for MG fire which will kill you in an instant, and sometimes even tanks.

This realism and authenticity can’t be done without good AI and BiA delivers and is even impressive today. The only issue I had with AI was with tanks. Sometimes they wouldn’t go around each other or go the other way to follow a command. The game also requires a lot of patience. Sometimes even trial and error. You can’t just rush every enemy like in Call of Duty and save the day. You can order squads to rush and attack while your other squad suppresses, then you can charge in with them to kill them all. You can also order squads set positions that you want so you have total control. It feels good and is a key part of the game. Without mastering this you won’t get very far.

You also can’t just use an M1 Garand and snipe an enemy’s head while he’s in cover. It just doesn’t work that way, you also can’t kill an MG unless you flank them. This isn’t Medal of Honor. This gave a great feeling of realism, but it was also very difficult. I died quite often because I chose a wrong tactic or I flanked the wrong way. Sometimes my impatience got in the way as well. I even found different weapons to help certain situations. When I finally got the Springfield sniper rifle it was a weapon from God. After all the inaccurate weapons that couldn’t hit crap, this thing made life easier, but only for a few levels at the end.

When it comes to looks, BiA looks great even to this day. The lighting looks real, the grass flows, the models and textures are pretty high-res (for back then) you will be impressed. The game holds up and is still better than a lot of shooters today. My main concern is that the game feels the same throughout. I just went around killing everything and maybe planted a few charges. I could mount an MG sometimes, ride the back of a tank, but overall there wasn’t much variety in the game which I find the biggest issue.

What’s here is one of the most authentic shooters around and fans of the genre won’t be disappointed at all. The game looks great, has smart AI, and tells a sad story of Baker Company and the 101st Airborne.

for decades gamers have pondered one of the world's most esoteric psychological dilemmas: "is war bad?"

i've never played haze or spec ops: the line, so i couldn't tell you for certain. but after running blindly through the cover of smoke and peripherally seeing my allies get split to shreds by machine guns and mortar strikes, i'm thinking it might be

turns out being historically accurate and recreating actual battles is enough to convey just how hellish war really is. top it off with simple-but-effective squad mechanics and weapons that can't hit shit unless your enemy's already pinned down - you've got a horror game in disguise

good stuff, randy pitchford. i'm sure you won't completely fall off in 4 more years - or masturbate to children

This game certainly surprised me. I was expecting something similar to classic Medal of Honour, but I found this game was much better than this. Now this was back when Gearbox was a developer and not a publisher, this was made under the eye of Ubisoft. Gearbox made a very good game here that captured the true horror and tactical difficulties of warfare. You command two different grounds and have to organise them to flank enemy soldiers, not to mention that you can run in yourself, however that's likely suicide unless you have your team surprising the enemy and stopping them from firing at you and turning you into swiss cheese.

A interesting function I kinda like, but did irritate me at first was how they use ammo. In most FPS games, you have an ammo counter which disregards clips apart from how many bullets are in the gun. As this game reflects realistic military battle, then clips are counted and reloading with a half-empty clip, you throw away those bullets in the clip you just unloaded so it's best to conserve ammo. Especially as the enemy do not drop ammo for your American weapons so you are very limited in your firepower.

I'd recommend this if you're sick of the so many military shooters out there, as this one feels like one that should exist, especially with having people in your squad who permanently die.

This game has a good idea in offering a more strategic approach to the WW2 shooters, but the execution is sadly just not good enough for it to stand out.

The suppress & flank tactic is novel for a minute, but once you realize that every level is built on repeating the same move without any real variety the gameplay starts feeling hollow. It doesn't help that the actual gunplay is made extremely unappealing and imprecise (probably because they wanted to push the player towards using their squad)

There's some fun to be had in the first half, but overall it comes across as a relatively mediocre project.

"A Lackluster WWII Shooter"

"Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30" is a WWII shooter from the mid-2000's, when every shooting game wanted to cash in on the new WWII video game craze. Inspired by Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" and touting a "tactical realism" to its combat, this introductory title to the series aimed to break new ground and deliver a smart, emotional, and realistic depiction of WWII through its gameplay and story. Did this title achieve its goals? No, it did not.

Upon playing the first few levels, one of the first things that I noticed was how awful the shooting felt. This game pushes its squad-combat on the player so much that your own aim is nerfed, making it so your bullets don't really land where you're aiming. Additionally, your character can barely hold a rifle steady, so everything is hard to target, let alone actually hit. This could be forgiven if the squad system was coherent enough, but of course this game manages to screw that up as well...

The controls for squad orders are straightforward - tap a button to send a squad to a location or lay down covering fire, press another button in conjunction with this to initiate an assault maneuver, and hold a separate button to rally your squad back to your position. This is a all fine and dandy, except for the fact that the AI pathfinding is trash. Your comrades will take idiotic routes to get to locations you have marked, and will take loads of damage if not outright die trying to follow many of your orders. This completely defeats the purpose of controlling where they go, since they end up deciding what they want to do themselves anyway! With the inability to consistently provide quality shooting yourself, this leads to a situation where you are "immersed" in a game playing as a weak "stormtrooper" commanding a group of morons throughout battle - you know, "EXACTLY" what WWII was all about.

The graphics are not the prettiest, and the textures and level design are washed out and very repetitive, respectively. The sound design is barebones as well, with directional audio being pretty hit-or-miss and barely any ambient noise existing for most gunfights. Missions are structured very generically, and consists of blowing up various points of interest, taking locations into your squads control, and defeating enemies in certain areas during assault/defense sections. Pretty normal stuff for a WWII shooter, with nothing that really stands out to differentiate this title from the rest of the bunch.

Lastly, the story - its really boring. Each soldier in your squad is very one-note, and you don't really learn anything compelling about them throughout the experience that makes you care if they survive each encounter or not. The voice acting is mediocre and gives off very amateurish vibes, and the dialogue is plain and predictable. It ain't no "Saving Private Ryan", not even close.

Overall, this game is just a weak WWII shooter with nothing that separates itself from the other games of the genre besides the factors this title advertises as different - story, strategy, and realism. This game fails on all three accounts, and delivers a barely presentable, rarely cohesive, and barebones WWII squad-based strategy FPS. I would Not Recommend people to try this one unless you have both an affinity for WWII-era shooters and janky strategy mechanics, all with a generous topping of boring characters and story segments.

Final Verdict: 3/10 (Poor)