Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30 Image
Metascore
87

Generally favorable reviews - based on 32 Critic Reviews What's this?

User Score
7.3

Mixed or average reviews- based on 188 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Summary: Created by Texas-based Gearbox Software, Brothers in Arms is the most realistic and authentic WWII shooter ever. While other WWII games have sugarcoated the war experience, Brothers in Arms is based on a true story and will immerse gamers into the gritty, uncensored and emotionally-chargedCreated by Texas-based Gearbox Software, Brothers in Arms is the most realistic and authentic WWII shooter ever. While other WWII games have sugarcoated the war experience, Brothers in Arms is based on a true story and will immerse gamers into the gritty, uncensored and emotionally-charged side of war. The game puts you in the shoes of Sgt. Matt Baker, a D-Day paratrooper squad leader, and asks you to lead the squad as you balance their lives with the success of the mission. The true stories and historical events you experience on your perilous journey take you through real battlefields meticulously recreated from aerial reconnaissance images, US Army Signal Corps photos and eye-witness accounts of war-torn Normandy. Players of allskill levels can battle their way through this intense experience because of Brothers in Arms innovative and accessible command and control system. [Ubisoft] Expand
Buy On
  • Developer: Gearbox Software
  • Genre(s): Action, Shooter, Shooter, First-Person, Historic, Historic, Arcade
  • # of players: No Online Multiplayer
  • Cheats: On GameFAQs
  • Rating: M
  • More Details and Credits »

Trailer

Play Sound
Please enter your birth date to watch this video:
You are not allowed to view this material at this time.
Brothers in Arms Demonstration
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. Pelit (Finland)
    93
    An excellent game. It is superbly written and researched. The situations and characters simply feel real. [Apr. 05]
  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.
  4. Can you forget "Medal of Honor" and "Call of Duty" by playing this game? Of course not, but Brothers in Arms marks a new beginning for the Second World War shooters. It's an extraordinary game, one that will change the history of war shooters forever.
  5. The effect that all this adds to the game is more a sense of realism than a sense of camaraderie. The harrowing, dangerous nature of war is shown here in its truest form in a video game.
  6. In a nutshell, when its 'gears' are clicking, Brothers in Arms manages to deepen the shooter genre with the addition of some great tactical gameplay and relatively realistic depiction of infantry warfare... [but] sadly lacked somewhat in the execution department, making it not as good as the reigning king of the genre.
  7. 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]

See all 32 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 26 out of 55
  2. Negative: 14 out of 55
  1. LuisR.
    Mar 22, 2005
    10
    This is a greatest WW2 game. The A.I. is so much better than other WW2 games. The grapics are okay they have a Band of Brothers kind of feel This is a greatest WW2 game. The A.I. is so much better than other WW2 games. The grapics are okay they have a Band of Brothers kind of feel to them. The sound is outstanding. There is never a quite moment in the game and feels like you are in a thick fire fight. Soliders yell and bullets fly over your head with dirt land on your screen, when a near by explosion ocurrs. The game runs great on my PC and i have a 1.3 GHz, with 512 Rdram, a ATI Radeon 9800 128 MB video crad and it runs great. Load times arn't even an issue they are not long at all. Some hard core Call of Duty players might be turned of by the game because they are a super solider. Give it a chance because if you compared the 2 games you feel a little scared of this one, the reason being that you die fast in Brothers in Arms. So you might get fustrated for a while. Play the game, it's fun and different. Expand
  2. Adam
    Mar 21, 2005
    10
    Although the graphics weren't the best I have seen, this was one of the most enjoyable gaming experiences I have had since Half Life 1. Although the graphics weren't the best I have seen, this was one of the most enjoyable gaming experiences I have had since Half Life 1. The level of realism is outstanding and you really feel like you are there on the battlefield. If you are looking for an arcade style game, look elsewhere, but for a realistic WWII experience, it doesn't get any better than Brothers in Arms. Call of Duty and Medal of Honor don't even come close. Expand
  3. JarrydR.
    Jun 24, 2005
    9
    By far the best WW 2 GAME I have EVER played it brings MOA , COD and fullspectrum warrior all into one ... the MP is fun.and for that guy thatBy far the best WW 2 GAME I have EVER played it brings MOA , COD and fullspectrum warrior all into one ... the MP is fun.and for that guy that said the AI is dumb play it on difficult or Authentic for a all out challange.... over and out. Expand
  4. 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,
    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
  5. 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 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
  6. 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 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. 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 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

See all 55 User Reviews