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. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. It's fun and well produced but it's a console version of an expansion pack and nothing more.
  4. 80
    From the great use of sound, the sharp graphics, and the innovative use of combat tactics, it's sure to please fans of Road to Hill 30 who want more of that same kind of gameplay.
  5. EiB feels grittier - closer to its fascinating yet fearful inspiration - than any other military shooter out there. Much of that feel comes from the credible mission design and AI already mentioned but a significant portion stems from fundamentals like the way the weapons look, sound and perform.
  6. An awesome game and earns a great deal of respect and admiration, but doesn’t quite earn what I wish it would.
  7. Even with the improvements to the A.I. and enhanced multiplayer experience, the game feels more like an expansion pack than a stand-alone product.
  8. 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.
  9. Earned In Blood might not seem like a radical departure from the original but the gloriously cascading AI and open maps have effectively transformed it into a very special WWII experience. The fact that there's nothing quite like it in such a crowded genre speaks volumes. [Dec 2005, p.103]
  10. This intense semi-sequel significantly ratchets up the enemy AI. [Holiday 2005, p.56]
  11. 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]
  12. Marches behind its predecessor as one of the most polished tactical shooters ever released. [Jan 2006, p.44]
  13. It’s essentially the same game as before, only played from a different angle.
  14. 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.
  15. Buoyed by extra content, yet lacking a proper sense of real progression from the last outing, it nevertheless remains a well-designed foray that taps into parts of the gaming brain that habitually lie dormant. [PC Zone]
  16. The levels still feel a little too restrictive, the scripted scenes will break again, and the German AI does tend to show flashes of blinding stupidity.
  17. Not the advance you may have hoped, but the co-op mode deserves medals. [Dec 2005, p.98]
  18. 83
    The fact that you are being asked to pay full premium for what is effectively an expansion pack in all but name, may put some off.
  19. 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.
  20. Excellent sense of immersion, great storytelling.
  21. There are a couple of perplexing flaws in the design, such as the inability to go prone or jump over low walls and fences, but suspend your disbelief and you'll be gripped.
  22. The first-person caper is satisfyingly immersive thanks to some outstanding graphical touches — heavy rain splatters neatly on Jeeps and we can even see Red’s freckles in close-up. All this detail is demanding, so you will need a fairly powerful PC to prevent the visuals from occasionally chugging.
  23. If it were a thirty dollar expansion pack it would have been lovely... but... it’s just not a good deal.
User Score
7.2

Mixed or average reviews- based on 65 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 10 out of 17
  2. Negative: 5 out of 17
  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.