• 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
  1. No two games play alike thanks to the incredible AI who act like real human enemies. They also die like real humans, meaning that they aren't given an unfair advantage. This is war.
  2. 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]
  3. 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]
  4. What makes this game such a wonderful and hellacious journey into the heart of warfare is its ability to let chaos reign. [May 2005, p.122]
  5. 80
    It’s a WWII shooter that will teach you about what your grandpappy went through with the same gritty verve as "Band of Brothers" and "Saving Private Ryan." This is the kind of game that proves war is truly hell.
  6. Although Brothers in Arms is not light years from your average military title, it institutes important gameplay changes that invigorate the player and influence the way the title is played. [Apr 2005, p.124]
  7. In the end, crisp visuals, superb sound and an engrossing solo campaign all help Brothers in Arms stand out from an overcrowded crop of World War II shooters.
  8. A good game... but just barely.
  9. A very nice combination of squad-based strategy and all out first-person shooter action. Not as good as the Xbox version if you have the choice, but still a solid WWII game.
  10. 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]
  11. The PlayStation 2 version of Brothers in Arms doesn't quite measure up to the PC and Xbox versions. The game feels noticeably unpolished across the board, with muddier graphics, tinny sound effects, and, most egregiously, problems with the game balance.
  12. 90
    Just about every aspect of the production is top-notch, from the stunning graphics to the realistic, graphic dialogue.
  13. 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.
  14. While the PS2 version is noticeably inferior to the Xbox and PC versions from a technical standpoint, its still a very worthy title if the PS2 is the only platform you can play it on.
  15. Not only does it have everything that all of the other first person shooter games have had, but it also has a feature that adds just enough strategy to the game that separates it from the rest.
  16. If you can get the Xbox or PC version, I would highly recommend that version over the PS2 version. If the PS2 version is your only option, then you won’t be disappointed.
  17. 86
    Unfortunately, not all of the features that make this a great game on the PC and the Xbox have made it to the PS2. There are some small changes -- like the lack of a clear indicator for fire commands or the absence of several presentation options -- that make the PS2 version less impressive than the other two.
  18. Gamers with short attention spans will likely find all the squad management tedious, but we think it adds a much-needed dimension to a very stale genre. Plus it includes the best video game quote so far this year: "If you see something, shoot it; if it screams in German, shoot it again."
  19. The game has something that many games are missing these days, and that is emotion.
  20. An addictive take on both WW2 and squad-based shooters. [Jan 2007, p.106]
  21. When the strategic squad combat works, it's neat... The strategic squad combat rarely works. [May 2005, p.106]
  22. With more of an emphasis on the intimate perils of war, the game feels fresh enough, but staggers in an attempt to draw us in to the characters. [May 2005, p.50]
  23. Easily the most enjoyable and innovative WWII experience out there. Period. [May 2005, p.72]
  24. 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.
  25. First-person shooter fans might struggle initially with the demanding targeting system, plus a selection of weapons that take into account the accuracy and range of their real-world counterparts.
  26. 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.
  27. We don't dislike Brothers In Arms - far from it - but can only be disappointed that we expected a classic war game and instead Ubisoft merely delivered a very good one.
  28. 97
    There’s a sense of respect in the game, a sort of homage to the past, that isn’t available in other WWII shooters. Couple that with a truly magnificent presentation.
  29. A uniquely immersive game, clearly crafted by a development team that was fed up with the path of every other WWII console release out there. For once in my life, I'm going to tell gamers everywhere to buy a WWII game for the Playstation 2, and I feel proud to say so.
  30. 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.
User Score
7.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 29 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 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 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 »