Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30 PlayStation 2

  • Publisher: Ubisoft
  • Release Date: Mar 15, 2005
  • Also On: PC
Metascore
82

Generally favorable reviews - based on 30 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 23 out of 30
  2. Negative: 0 out of 30
Buy On
  1. games(TM)
    70
    Gearbox should be applauded for taking the first-person genre in a bold new direction, but during the bulk of the game, players must be willing to sit back and let the developer tell the story. [Apr 2005, p.104]
  2. Edge Magazine
    70
    Plenty of games have flourished around the slaughter, scale and destruction of war, but few have managed to realise a soldier’s role and worth - disposable, vulnerable, pivotal - as well as this. [Apr 2005, p.100]
  3. You're actively encouraged to exploit one manoeuvre: trying to suppress and outflank your opponents. While it pretty much becomes de rigueur throughout the game (and extremely important when commanding large numbers of men), its appeal is shortlived - utilising the same tactic can become tiresome.
  4. Official U.S. Playstation Magazine
    60
    When the strategic squad combat works, it's neat... The strategic squad combat rarely works. [May 2005, p.106]
  5. For others who appreciate a little strategy to go with their shooting, Brothers in Arms delivers a rather intense war-playing experience that goes along with a fascinating story told from the perspective of the soldiers who lived it.
  6. There's a lot to like about Brothers in Arms, and the tactical element is much more than just a tacked-on gimmick. But with below-par visuals and unbalanced gameplay, we're left with a somewhat sticky and unappealing shooter with a lot of unfulfilled potential. [PSW]
  7. A good game... but just barely.

Awards & Rankings

#68 Most Discussed PS2 Game of 2005
User Score
7.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 30 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 11 out of 16
  2. Negative: 2 out of 16
  1. ChrisK.
    Jun 27, 2005
    0
    This sucked dang it like one of best games ever but not thas why i said 0 but the new medal of honor is da get game fo sho.
  2. DeepOut
    May 25, 2005
    6
    Bought a game falsely represented, blasphemous in claims of realistic and authentic world war2 ever. even on the xbox version the visuals isBought a game falsely represented, blasphemous in claims of realistic and authentic world war2 ever. even on the xbox version the visuals is crapp and physics engine is also crapp. How can you claim a game to be realistic when visually its not even resembles the slightest visuals of a real world. Gameplay is as dull as watching chessmatch between kasparov and supercomputer. somehow when you finish a level your weapons change on the start of the new level how could that be possible in the real world, another is the level design is as flat as flatbreasted woman really uninspiring and unmotivating, you cant really explore the areas somehow theres a dead horse on the road you cant cross that path somehow an invisible wall stops you.. The A.I is as bad as the rest of the game, even if your near the enemy they somehow miss you by a mile. Enough said as worst as star wars republic commando(crappiest fps of the year). Full Review »
  3. TodorO.
    May 13, 2005
    5
    How much realistic can a game get before becoming boring? In this one you will understand how lame weaponry was back in the 40´s and How much realistic can a game get before becoming boring? In this one you will understand how lame weaponry was back in the 40´s and how poorly equiped the troops were, you will realize that in order to shoot an kill an enemy was as difficult as catching a fly with a sieve. But in the end, you surely won´t pick this game ever again. It´s too short and the its features are so weak that it feels like playing a demo. Full Review »