Metascore
84

Generally favorable reviews - based on 23 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 21 out of 23
  2. Negative: 0 out of 23
  1. 95
    It's one of those sequels where all of the evolution takes place underneath the façade -- a game you've got to pick up and feel all the subtle differences. And of course, if Blood is your first Brothers experience, well, it's hard to imagine going back to anything less authentic and strategic.
  2. It is as good as the previous game, and then some with the enhancements that were made. Most notably, in the computer AI that puts up so much more of a fight than even the best FPS games.
  3. Excellent sense of immersion, great storytelling.
  4. In many ways, Blood feels like the polished game Gearbox couldn't completely nail last time around. Most of the evolution takes place under the hood.
  5. 88
    Only an incremental improvement on the original. The greater flexibility of the AI and the new multiplayer options are certainly welcome additions, but the game still feels... more like Brothers in Arms v1.5 than a full sequel.
  6. Earned in Blood offers a rather similar experience to its excellent predecessor, with improved enemy artificial intelligence and additional multiplayer options. The novelty has worn off just a bit, though.
  7. This intense semi-sequel significantly ratchets up the enemy AI. [Holiday 2005, p.56]
  8. An awesome game and earns a great deal of respect and admiration, but doesn’t quite earn what I wish it would.
  9. More like an add-on than a real sequel. Despite that, Earned in Blood has better AI and is overall better than the first one. The best WW2 team leader game at the moment. [Nov 2005]
User Score
7.1

Mixed or average reviews- based on 64 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 11 out of 18
  2. Negative: 5 out of 18
  1. John
    Oct 28, 2005
    4
    Action Trip's reviewer says it right. Agree with his comments totally. A marketing scheme to sell an add-on as a sequel while the Action Trip's reviewer says it right. Agree with his comments totally. A marketing scheme to sell an add-on as a sequel while the original game is still "hot". OK game, but seen it all before and not enough differences. Same good points same bad points as original BIA. 'Nuff said. Full Review »
  2. Sep 29, 2011
    4
    Graphics are pretty bad. The actual gameplay is very repetitive and although it's challenging it certainly isn't fun. Realistic? Maybe.Graphics are pretty bad. The actual gameplay is very repetitive and although it's challenging it certainly isn't fun. Realistic? Maybe. Frustrating, slow and boring? Most likely. It's not really a shooter and although it tries to be different, its flaws start to show when nobody plays multiplayer and the skirmish mode is bad as well. Nice idea, but bad execution. Full Review »
  3. [Anonymous]
    Oct 20, 2005
    4
    I played it for a day and then gave up on it. i didnt find it fun... and although it seemed technically interesting... it was just annoying.