User Score
7.2

Mixed or average reviews- based on 161 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 91 out of 161
  2. Negative: 24 out of 161
Buy On

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. DeanK.
    Mar 20, 2005
    3
    Big Disappointment. As realisitic as a chocolate kettle.
  2. BruceT.
    Apr 1, 2005
    4
    I agree that this is an overrated game. Tried this game because of the high Metascore. Poor graphics. Just based on flanking tactics, and gets pretty monotonous and annoying sometimes. Not to mention that pressing F5 gets you to change cameras but not told in the documentation on how to revert to first-person mode.
  3. TimR.
    Apr 1, 2005
    4
    I've never played a game that got such good industry reviews and failed to come even close to those reviews. I keep thinking I must have played a different game. I just don't get - this game is not fun. It is incredibly repetitive. Every mission - find the enemy, supress the enemy, flank the enemy, kill the enemy. And it's not like you can really choose how you are going to I've never played a game that got such good industry reviews and failed to come even close to those reviews. I keep thinking I must have played a different game. I just don't get - this game is not fun. It is incredibly repetitive. Every mission - find the enemy, supress the enemy, flank the enemy, kill the enemy. And it's not like you can really choose how you are going to do the above; there is usually only one or two paths to flank. Expand
  4. Matt
    Aug 3, 2007
    3
    I had such hopes that this would be a good game, but instead, it was a bad minigame drawn out to cover the plot. The mechanics of the minigame are simple: see the Germans, shot in the general direction of the Germans, tell your squad to stop taking cover from the wrong direction and shoot at the Germans, walk over to the Germans, shoot the Germans. The friendly AI is so useless that I had such hopes that this would be a good game, but instead, it was a bad minigame drawn out to cover the plot. The mechanics of the minigame are simple: see the Germans, shot in the general direction of the Germans, tell your squad to stop taking cover from the wrong direction and shoot at the Germans, walk over to the Germans, shoot the Germans. The friendly AI is so useless that despite the levels constant attempts to railroad you into using this tactic, I found it more effective to order my squad to sit in the corner while I single-handedly slaughtered the Germans. The weapons behave as an experienced shooter would expect them too, in the hands of untrained game developers. The German AI compensates for the flaws in the American AI, demonstrating a complete inability to use grenades effectively, cover their flanks or rear, or even utilize the old tactic from Wolf 3d and gang up on the poor Americans. On authentic difficulty, the weapons are still almost completely useless, requiring multiple head and chest hits to bring down a German. Fortunately, the Germans have the same problem, allowing you to simply charge enemy riflemen, emptying the clip of a Thompson into them, and ignoring the hits you take in the process. Perhaps most disappointing was the fact that for all their efforts and attention to detail in historical accuracy, the levels were essentially long clear tunnels. If pinned down by a German machine gun in the street, it might seem reasonable to jump the fence beside the road and take cover in the ditch, move forward and flank, right? Wrong. The fence should be easily cleared, but it is in actuality the base of an invisible wall. Such invisible walls abound, in order to ensure that the path chosen by the game designers is the path the player follows. All in all, this feels less like playing a game, and more like playing a role in a movie, only instead of a script, you simply have a director yelling at you whenever you do anything that isn't what he wants. Expand
  5. AndrewW.
    Apr 13, 2005
    4
    If you are expecting to find good AI and multiplayer co-op, you will be disappointed. This is just another scripted shooter like COD and MOH, with multiplay tacked on half finished and poorly implemented. When playing over a LAN with two players, you cannot both choose the same side v the computer. The bots are too dumb and need a human to lead them around. You cannot manually enter an IP If you are expecting to find good AI and multiplayer co-op, you will be disappointed. This is just another scripted shooter like COD and MOH, with multiplay tacked on half finished and poorly implemented. When playing over a LAN with two players, you cannot both choose the same side v the computer. The bots are too dumb and need a human to lead them around. You cannot manually enter an IP address for the server and there is no dedicated server or mission/map editor. The maps are small and there is no random respawning. It gets boring and predictable very quickly. Don't waste your money on buying this new, there will be a lot of used copies going cheaply on Ebay, mine included. Expand
  6. Jul 17, 2012
    4
    This game is one of the worst ww2 games I ever seen. The graphics is not good (see another games from 2005 for eg. COD2 to comparison) but it's not bad. The story is not bad, but a little boring. The fighting is not so good in the game. Usually, you have to shoot 5-10 bullets into your enemy's body to kill him. It's ridiculous. Your teammate's AI is poor. They running like chickens in theThis game is one of the worst ww2 games I ever seen. The graphics is not good (see another games from 2005 for eg. COD2 to comparison) but it's not bad. The story is not bad, but a little boring. The fighting is not so good in the game. Usually, you have to shoot 5-10 bullets into your enemy's body to kill him. It's ridiculous. Your teammate's AI is poor. They running like chickens in the garden. When someone is killed in your fireteam it's a big problem you think. But it's not! He will be there in the next mission. How? What is it? Brothers in Arms: Return to Castle Wolfenstein? Another bad point is the fighting against armour. Your Stuart can easily destroy a Stug III. But the Stug can't even hit your tank. Yes, a 37 mm tank gun can easily penetrate a 50 mm armour, but when the Stug's 75 mm tank gun fires and hits the Stuart, it's 50 mm armour is still up. Is this realism for you? I don't think so. And the "flanking". The game says in the start to flank your enemy every time you can. But how can I flank the enemy when the maps are not enough wide for it. There is not enough space to flank (except one or two times). If you want realism, good AI, good story, good gameplay or good graphics, then don't try it! Otherwise it's your game. Expand
  7. DanielC.
    Oct 8, 2007
    1
    Sucked! Repetitive tactics get boring very quickly. If you're a drone, you'll like this game; if you're a human, stay away. I bought this game based on good critics' reviews. Something want terribly wrong here. Were all the critics on drugs, payed off, or just didn't bother playing through more than just a handful of missions. You can't judge a whole game Sucked! Repetitive tactics get boring very quickly. If you're a drone, you'll like this game; if you're a human, stay away. I bought this game based on good critics' reviews. Something want terribly wrong here. Were all the critics on drugs, payed off, or just didn't bother playing through more than just a handful of missions. You can't judge a whole game solely based on a first few levels. Critics, play the whole game before providing your two cents worth. This game, although appearing good at the beginning, quickly becomes worthless as you play on. I think that this game will go down in history as the most overrated game ever. At least the users, not the critics, gave it a more fair review, although still a little hight. Expand
  8. Mar 13, 2012
    4
    Is it worth playing you ask? Well, if your ambition is to play EVERY WW2 game around, then maybe yes. The graphics are poor. The animations are poor. The AI is poor. It's a poor game. Is it super-awful? No. No game-breaking bugs either. It's just that the fun factor ranks up to the tune of "ever so slightly" fun. Replay MOHAA if you can instead. Give this one a pass, because if you reallyIs it worth playing you ask? Well, if your ambition is to play EVERY WW2 game around, then maybe yes. The graphics are poor. The animations are poor. The AI is poor. It's a poor game. Is it super-awful? No. No game-breaking bugs either. It's just that the fun factor ranks up to the tune of "ever so slightly" fun. Replay MOHAA if you can instead. Give this one a pass, because if you really enjoy it, you must be brain dead. 5/10. Expand
  9. VaxutopiaV.
    Apr 3, 2005
    4
    Really disappointed. It's overrated for sure!! can't complain about that! i've played so many WWII games in the last couple of years and this one is just "mediocre". The graphics are poor but i think that the engine has his limitations. Poor gameplay, always the same situation again and again!! Even if CoD is more arcade, i think it's better. For me the best tactical Really disappointed. It's overrated for sure!! can't complain about that! i've played so many WWII games in the last couple of years and this one is just "mediocre". The graphics are poor but i think that the engine has his limitations. Poor gameplay, always the same situation again and again!! Even if CoD is more arcade, i think it's better. For me the best tactical WWII Shooter is H&DII and his addon even with it's own problems. Expand
  10. TravisR
    Feb 7, 2009
    2
    This game is awful. Repetitive, boring, ridiculous load times, and horrible hit detection. Bad for the time, and equally bad now.
  11. MattW.
    Apr 9, 2005
    2
    This game blows. Absolutely horrible game. MAYBE for 9.99 or something. The graphics are pathetic, the gameplay is boring, the colision detection system is unbelievably bad (ie: you can shoot someone and it doesn't recognize the hit because it obviously doesn't use a per pixel detection system like say UT2004) and all in all the game is very boring. I wouldn't recomend this This game blows. Absolutely horrible game. MAYBE for 9.99 or something. The graphics are pathetic, the gameplay is boring, the colision detection system is unbelievably bad (ie: you can shoot someone and it doesn't recognize the hit because it obviously doesn't use a per pixel detection system like say UT2004) and all in all the game is very boring. I wouldn't recomend this to anyoine if it's priced over 10 or 15 bucks. go get COD and COD: UO and you'll be MUCH MUCH happier! Expand
  12. Mar 12, 2013
    4
    Maybe back when it came out (March 15, 2005, according to Metacritic) the graphics were something to be praised, but today (when compared with other games from the same time) they looked like they must've been something just close to the average.
    Critics and users alike have praised the sound design, and in that case I agree that there seems to have been great effort to fill every nook of
    Maybe back when it came out (March 15, 2005, according to Metacritic) the graphics were something to be praised, but today (when compared with other games from the same time) they looked like they must've been something just close to the average.
    Critics and users alike have praised the sound design, and in that case I agree that there seems to have been great effort to fill every nook of the game with noise and chatter. It does not get in the way of the experience and it does indeed fill you with a certain sense of urgency that unfortunately the game-play fails to do.
    With a strange mixture of extreme ease and bewildering difficulty Brothers in Arms fails to create on the player the wonderful immersion many people talk about.
    Just during my first missions I encountered A.I. in the form of the German troopers, that either stands still waiting for you to shoot it, or kills you with one shot through the same type of barricade that makes them an impregnable target.
    The game seems to be so dedicated to the repetitive "suppress-flank-anihilate" game-play it offers, that then almost all fire towards enemy positions ends in just being harmless suppressive fire. This next example is ridiculous and happened to me several times just during the first chapters:
    I run to take cover behind a fence. Germans start pouring out a burning edifice. My one companion is ordered to suppress the very door they come out of. Suddenly a German soldier makes a run for it and stands in front of me on the other side of the fence. He is completely uncovered and a meter or so away from where I duck. The interface of the game tells me he is being "suppressed" (not killed but suppressed) by the fire of my buddy and other soldiers that are there just for flavour since they really do nothing but shout. From behind my cover I shoot at him. At his face. My crosshairs are clear upon his nose. I almost empty my machine gun on his nostrils. And all I do, according to the interface of the game, is "suppress" his position. He wakes up from his A.I. stupor, and shoots me dead with one bullet from the other side of the fence.
    And that is just the A.I. and collision sensors. Now, during the same scenario I had seen some Germans pouring out from behind some hay stacks next to a house. I ordered my one-man platoon to follow me on a daring charge, since I was sick and tired of battling this bloody game for results and wanted to end this ridiculous scenario.
    We run and reached those hay stacks and there was a space between them and on the floor some boxed ammunition for a machine gun of some sort. "Ammo and a hole to the flank of the enemy, sweeeet". If the game would only be that logical. I tried running through the stacks and the "ammo" box was a barrier. An invisible wall that could not be passed nor jumped. Although these things were only small boxes lying on the floor. The next thing lying there were me and my trusty side-kick filled to the rim with, probably, the very same german led I had tried to jump.
    I can go on forever with the flaws of a game that supposedly rewards the tactical enthusiasm (which I imagine in reality changes with every situation making a charge of equal value to a specific scenario) but punishes any move out of the predetermined choices of what is an acceptable strategy. Like "suppress-flank-anihilate" one.
    I say, search your Nazi bashing somewhere else.
    Expand
  13. Dec 28, 2013
    3
    This was another disappointment by gearbox i only now remembered to write, as i saw told old home video where i play this at background of the video and hahaha curse alot, while my dad try play guitar for camera Too bad the gearbox seems have taken a habit of selling games with built hype and putting less effort of finishing fixing and updating their games for players
Metascore
87

Generally favorable reviews - based on 32 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 30 out of 32
  2. Negative: 0 out of 32
  1. 100
    It's not just its uncompromising realism or its emotive theme, it's the whole package -- great looks, fantastic sound, and a gameplay and plot structure that promotes bonding with the men under your command. Wrap that up with a slick control method and, for once, some tactical depth, and you're left with a very special recipe.
  2. 91
    Offering up engaging, squad-based battles and presenting it all in an authentic yet undeniably cinematic setting, Brothers in Arms is a game that, to borrow a phrase from General Patton, "grabs you by the nose and kicks you in the ass."
  3. Quite honestly the first realistic shooter I’ve found myself completely enthralled within. It’s cross between Medal of Honor/Call of Duty and Full Spectrum Warrior gameplay creates an experience that is fresh and compelling, while the multiplayer mode should make this one of the most popular titles around.