Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30 PC

User Score
7.2

Mixed or average reviews- based on 159 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 90 out of 159
  2. Negative: 24 out of 159
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. DickM.
    Mar 21, 2005
    6
    Disappointing. Very scripted. All action is based on flanking trick. Outdated graphics. Sound is too quiet and no EAX support.
  2. SagatO.
    Mar 21, 2005
    5
    The big issue with this game on the PC are the bugs. A massive amount of people are currently unable to play it, even on relatively new systems. They are now left in limbo until the developer releases its v1.03 patch. Regardless of whether the game is good or not (and yes it is very good) there can be no forgiveness for rushing the game to the shelves before it has been properly tested on The big issue with this game on the PC are the bugs. A massive amount of people are currently unable to play it, even on relatively new systems. They are now left in limbo until the developer releases its v1.03 patch. Regardless of whether the game is good or not (and yes it is very good) there can be no forgiveness for rushing the game to the shelves before it has been properly tested on a variety of chipsets. People paying $40+ for a game and meet the minimum system specs on the box should not be left waiting for patches! Expand
  3. MinhN.
    Mar 26, 2005
    5
    I play a lot of FPS' and this is quite overrated. It is way too scripted. The maps are much too small. The AI isn't that great, the soldiers have a lot of problems following orders at times so you end up doing a lot on your own. And like other reviewers state all you do is flank enemy positions and then go to the next point and repeat. The game is much too monotonous. Farcry and I play a lot of FPS' and this is quite overrated. It is way too scripted. The maps are much too small. The AI isn't that great, the soldiers have a lot of problems following orders at times so you end up doing a lot on your own. And like other reviewers state all you do is flank enemy positions and then go to the next point and repeat. The game is much too monotonous. Farcry and Call of Duy are better games. Expand
  4. OwenT.
    May 5, 2007
    6
    This game is based on the hype around band of brothers, saving private ryan and like movies. Not that this is bad, but you need to add something original to stand out and not get boring. The developers did not try. they slavishy put everything what is part of the band of brothers trade in it: the melancholic overvoice, the dramatic music(stings!!! more strings!!!) and the reluctant This game is based on the hype around band of brothers, saving private ryan and like movies. Not that this is bad, but you need to add something original to stand out and not get boring. The developers did not try. they slavishy put everything what is part of the band of brothers trade in it: the melancholic overvoice, the dramatic music(stings!!! more strings!!!) and the reluctant hero(s). What is a pity is that you can't skip these ramblings of fantasy and you are forced to sit through them all. And then what is it? The game can best be described as a simple squad based shooter. It is basic because they stripped the shooter part to it's bare minimum: you can''t run, lean, lie down and aim properly. And even when you get close to a german you notice that your weapons are underpowered. It takes a full clip to kill one. An strinking example of this weakness is the grenade. When it detonates, you need to be very close to get harmed, less than a meter, and then it does hardly any damage or fails to stun opponents. Of course this was done on purpose. If this was a call of duty with a team added to it, you might ditch the team and go on your own. Because you would do this because your teammates are to stupid to be left on their own and need constant watching. So to prevent you from dumping them and to force you to work with the team they make you weak. But amazingly enough, the team tactics are very basic too: you can't command indvidual members nor assign members to groups, or arm them as you want them and you can only give them a few basic commands. In addition the game is very scripted. As in a shooter you run along one path. In this game however the path has somewhat been widened to allow you to 'Flank the enemy'. Because that is what the developer hit upon. Each and everytime the germans conveniently appear in small groups consisting of 2 to 4 men, take up position behind some cover where they stay until you have killed them. You assign one team to pin them, and you or another team move in from the flank. Luckily the german will fall for this same tactic each and every time. Germans won't attack you except in scripted moments or pin your team even if you are under fire from a mg, they leave their positions open to flanking fire and rear attacks, won't shift their positions,leave strongpoints open to the rear and won't cover the approaches or each others positions, and setup mg's and guns only to shoot out to one direction and finally: germans seldom use grenades(but we know why now). Brothers in Arms therefore quickly becomes boring. If you want proper based squad based game I would advise to try out SWAT IV or Rainbow Six. Expand
  5. RobertC.
    Mar 21, 2005
    7
    Gameplay seems quite funny, at least in the beginning. Unfortunately, being a PC game, it totally lacks the graphic and audio component. "Outdated" was the first thing I thought when I installed this game. Poor, very very poor details. Bad animations. Choppy ramerate even on high-end machines (22-30 fps when lucky). Good voice-comments though.
  6. MortenJ.
    Apr 2, 2005
    7
    The graphics are good - some great particle effects, a beautiful soft lighting and some very believable environments with plenty of grass and trees. The gameplay is bit repetetive but still quite enjoyable and at any rate, it is more innovative than games like medal of honour and call of duty - this time there is some strategy to the game :) But two major problems drag this game down; 1. The graphics are good - some great particle effects, a beautiful soft lighting and some very believable environments with plenty of grass and trees. The gameplay is bit repetetive but still quite enjoyable and at any rate, it is more innovative than games like medal of honour and call of duty - this time there is some strategy to the game :) But two major problems drag this game down; 1. The LOADTIMES are truly horrible - loading a level can take up to three minutes and reloading a checkpoint (quickloading) takes more than 1½ min. In a realistic game where u really cannot afford loosing much hp on any of your 7 men, it is absolutely devestating that u have to spend so much time watching a line grow from the left to the right of the screen. I really dont play the game very much as the 2 min. interruptions get more more frequent as the difficulty increases 2. this game is built un the unreal2 engine - a 2 years old, yet rather powerful, game engine for the pc. And what is this!??!?!?!?!? My framerate was around 5 fps at the beginning of a particular level (not caused by loading issues or too little system memory or graphic memory). bottomline is that Brothers in Arms is a good game, that sadly is spoiled by a poor engine... Expand
  7. ManlioM.
    Apr 5, 2005
    6
    Poor techincally speaking, but with great atmosphere surely the game has it flaws and they're quite annoying (poor AI, a l'le bit outdated graphics, poor interaction, linear gameplay) but for a BandofBrothers' fan could be interesting.
  8. Robotron3000
    Mar 20, 2005
    6
    Graphics ok, enemy voices gets repetitive within 5 minutes. Animation is pretty bad, characters stick their guns through their arms. Tanks are unable to go over a 50cm earth wall or shoot through and overturned wooden cart. Tanks are unable to reverse, they'll rather show their rear to a panzerfaust. Squadmates are unwilling to jump the smallest obstacle and will instead run right outGraphics ok, enemy voices gets repetitive within 5 minutes. Animation is pretty bad, characters stick their guns through their arms. Tanks are unable to go over a 50cm earth wall or shoot through and overturned wooden cart. Tanks are unable to reverse, they'll rather show their rear to a panzerfaust. Squadmates are unwilling to jump the smallest obstacle and will instead run right out in front of enemy MGs. The game keeps telling you to flank the enemy, but then you run into invisible barriers. All in all a good try, but not very well executed. Expand
  9. BrianJ.
    Mar 20, 2005
    5
    I'm serious about the 5 rating. Not as good as the reviews lead you to believe. Wait a while and read player opinions on the forums. 1. Team commands are too simple. Either "follow me," "take cover," "covering fire," or "charge." A real step back from superior games like Operation Flashpoint where you can go stealth, re-assign soldiers to groups, etc. The soldiers pretty much shoot I'm serious about the 5 rating. Not as good as the reviews lead you to believe. Wait a while and read player opinions on the forums. 1. Team commands are too simple. Either "follow me," "take cover," "covering fire," or "charge." A real step back from superior games like Operation Flashpoint where you can go stealth, re-assign soldiers to groups, etc. The soldiers pretty much shoot anything but miss when up close! You can't tell one to man a machine gun. The game essentially becomes an exercise of telling them to go there, go there, go there whenever you see a part of the "maze" where they can hide behind. 2. The "maze" factor is really annoying. Again, no comparison to Operation Flashpoint where you can really flank opponents by going anywhere ...not just around the enemy on a boring maze route that is so obvious it takes 10 seconds to find it. 3. Multiplayer is pretty frustrating. Its hard to find a server, you can't use server filters, you can't even refresh the server listing. Usually by the time you select a server it is already full or disconnected. Setting up your own game and waiting 20 minutes for other players is not fun, either. Once in the game, the gameplay is pretty simple and not as strategic as reviewers stated. Finally, you can have only 4 players at once in multiplayer...most of the time someone drops out and your stuck with 3. If you really like Call of Duty and scripted combat events, you can ignore this review. You'll enjoy it. If you were expecting a more open-ended adventure using strategic elements, I think you'll be disappointed after about 3 minutes. Eventually, some company will make a combat sim that is easy to play, has good AI, lots of combat options, is open-ended in terms of map landscape, and has decent multiplayer options. Unfortunately, this isn't it. Expand
  10. MikeL.
    Apr 3, 2005
    5
    Like some said, quite overrated. It's a game you really want to like, only, after a while I found out that the gameplay in MoH and CoD simply worked better.. unfortunately.
  11. MarcoP.
    Apr 4, 2005
    5
    Graphics= good for 2003 map=very small gameplay=not good longevity= disinstalled at day 3 of the campaign if you want a bad game , BIA is for you..
  12. Chimp
    Apr 30, 2005
    7
    this game has some neat ideas, but all in all i keep wanting to just play it like a regular shooter and you cant. the artificial missing at some points just gets me angry, i mean you aim at them PERFECTLY and it misses, you need to do the tactical stuff. and come on....if youre going to do a WWII shooter, does it have to be playing as americans in france? every single ww2 game has doen this game has some neat ideas, but all in all i keep wanting to just play it like a regular shooter and you cant. the artificial missing at some points just gets me angry, i mean you aim at them PERFECTLY and it misses, you need to do the tactical stuff. and come on....if youre going to do a WWII shooter, does it have to be playing as americans in france? every single ww2 game has doen that excpet MOHPA. besides that good. Expand
  13. MorkB.
    Apr 1, 2007
    6
    This game is amateur work. Hands down, its amateur work, amateur game. It goes to show that the industry vets should do the innovating, and the newbies should do the polishing. Graphics are fine. Sound effects can be underwhelming, but are balanced out with great voice acting and music. Running speed it good, squad commands are functional. AI could use some work but is good as it is. All This game is amateur work. Hands down, its amateur work, amateur game. It goes to show that the industry vets should do the innovating, and the newbies should do the polishing. Graphics are fine. Sound effects can be underwhelming, but are balanced out with great voice acting and music. Running speed it good, squad commands are functional. AI could use some work but is good as it is. All the basics to make a tactical, squad based WWII shooter are here. Too bad the Combat isn't. To start off, the shooting mechanics are terrible. Its funny, its like your player, a trained soldier, shoots with the skill of a game developer testing out weapons for his new game, so as to implement realistic recoil effects, without realizing he needs to practice take firearm classes for a month first. Anyway, recoil from guns is totally unrealistic (Trust me, I won 7 guns). Combat is slow, underwhelming, and utterly frustrating. Its also annoying as hell to lose a whole fireteam to a random artillery shell. Overall, actually fighting Nazi's in this game is like sludging through tar, its slow, annoying, and something you don't want to do again. Its like this game never even went through a beta or an alpha stage. Rather than making you play the game the way it was meant to be played (tactically) with streamlined, intuiting gameplay, the creators gave up and just tossed in a few cheap tricks to force you to play how it was meant to. For example, the game doesn't reward patience, smart thinking, or good positioning. This is not like Red Orchestra. Instead, the game makes it impossible to kill anyone with anything other than a chest hit. Why? To FORCE you to flank those behind cover. So even if their heads are exposed, but they're crouched behind cover, you can pour on 100 rounds with a BAR at their helmets and the enemy will just sit there unscratched. This is, ironically, a method to make the game more realistic! This game should have been sent back to the drawing board. This game feels like it never went through any refinement process at all, at least gameplay and level design wise. This game is like playing a beta test. Guns are waaayyyy off, too many of the sound effects sound like place holders, sometimes kooky AI, bad, crappy level design. Usually after a beta test, the team cuts the bad levels out, makes more good levels to make for that, and fine tunes the gameplay. But it just seemed like that never happened here. Instead, the devs just stuffed in some cheap tricks to make you play the game as it was advertised, instead of refining and adding stuff to they "F" system, and published it. Expand
  14. Nov 14, 2014
    7
    I finished a lot of FPS games. I enjoy World War II games. I played a few instances of Call of Duty and Medal of Honor.

    The graphics is OK, the sound is OK. The game itself is not typical. It focuses on tactics and leading a team of men, giving them orders. It's very difficult to finish without managing the other soldiers. This gets complicated at some moments. Some of the maps are a
    I finished a lot of FPS games. I enjoy World War II games. I played a few instances of Call of Duty and Medal of Honor.

    The graphics is OK, the sound is OK.

    The game itself is not typical. It focuses on tactics and leading a team of men, giving them orders. It's very difficult to finish without managing the other soldiers. This gets complicated at some moments. Some of the maps are a little dull (too much fields, too little buildings and towns) and when you can't finish a dull level just because your teammate gets lost between bushes and can't follow you it gets a bit annoying.
    Expand
  15. Feb 29, 2016
    7
    I need to come clean. I wasn't fond of playing a fps commanding other companions how to behave. My mistake, the developers pulled it off and it's pleasure to rewind myself this title.
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.