Jump to navigation
Sponsored by Alienware tracer
Advertisement

Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood Review

PC Review by Oliver Clare

7 October, 2005

In a step that risks setting back the cause of progressive games reviewing several years here are five things that I loathe about Brothers In Arms: Earned In Blood.

Number One. Anyone getting their WW2 education primarily from this game would think that the German army's sole preparation for D-Day was to commandeer every single crate, barrel and oil drum in Western Europe, ship them to Normandy, then arrange them in neat barriers every twenty metres or so.

Number Two. (and this is connected to number one) What in God's name do the good people of north-west France manufacture their doors from? It has to be some-kind of bullet-proof, boot-proof miracle timber; why else would soldiers on both sides insist on doing 98 per cent of their fighting in the open air.

Number Three. Were the American's toughest troopers really so out-of-condition in 1944 that they couldn't break-into a sprint or clamber over a low wall? Were they really so encumbered with kit that they wouldn't lean round corners just in case the weight of grenades hanging from their webbing caused them to topple over and flounder on the ground like upturned beetles. The fear of falling and never being able to get up again would certainly explain why troops are so reluctant to press their bellies into the damp protective Normandy earth.

Number Four. Did Gearbox's set-out to create one of the nastiest grenade hurling systems known to Man or was it just a happy accident? Pineapple-tossing is obviously more art than science but should I really have to stare at the sky and cross my fingers to hit a barn-door just across the lane.

'Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood' Screenshot 1

Not all cows have four stomachs.

Number Five. If contemporary shooters have a list of golden rules then somewhere very near the top must be "If you can see it then you should be able to put a slug in it." Though EiB seems slightly better than Road to Hill 30 in this respect, there are still too many occasions where you pop away for ages at exposed helmets (anyone that so much as sniggers at that remark will get an instant detention) and do no damage whatsoever.

There we go then. Five things I hate about EiB. Now for the five reasons why I think it's the finest ww2 shooter around.

Reason One (a biggy): One of the most impressive aspects of Brothers In Arms: Road to Hill 30 game was the emphasis it puts on genuine squad tactics. Lone-wolf glory hunting and narrow assaults were usually (at the higher difficulty levels at least) ruthlessly punished. To succeed you had to 'fix' enemies with suppressing fire using one of your two controllable teams, then flank and eliminate them. This was great fun up to a point, that point being the hundredth time you flanked the hundredth knot of Nazis cowering obediently behind the hundredth wall of crates. The Germans were just too static and predictable in RTH30. That's all changed in EiB. Now you regularly find yourself outflanked and out-thought. Foes may spot you creeping round behind them and make dashes for better positions. This makes for wonderfully chaotic and replayable battles. Example? In one particularly tough story mission (Hedgerow Hell) I'd followed the same tactics three times in a row and come to grief each time. On the fourth try I positioned a covering team in a slightly different spot then advanced down a ditch that had previously been completely deserted and safe. This time I ran right into a pair of relocating Jerries who, in the ensuing point-blank firefight, left me staring at the sky through a veil of seeping blood.

'Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood' Screenshot 2

Germans *inside* a building. What devilry is this?

Reason Two: EiB provides an absorbing alternative to its central story mode in the shape of ten standalone skirmish battles. These can be relished as two (one German, one American) mini campaigns or, more interestingly, as highly configurable one-off challenges. Fancy facing foes that can't shoot for toffee but have nerves of Krupps steel? Want to play a scenario against the clock or as a desperate 'pop til you drop' defensive suicide mission? It's all possible. Not only are there numerous ways to tweak these longevity-bestowing skirmish fights they can also be enjoyed as memorable two-player co-op kill safaris.

Reasons Three: The first third of EiB's 13 story missions are set in exactly the same neck-of-the-Normandy-woods that featured in RTH30. Later you get to frolic in the ruins and rail yards of towns like Carentan but even so it's hard to describe this game's primarily rural settings as particularly varied or dramatic. Is this a weakness? If you're after a globe-trotting CoD-style experience then probably. If, however, you're after a game environment that gets under your skin and your fingernails, giving you a tiny insight into what it must have been like to slog through 'Bocage' country grappling for every hamlet, village, and cabbage patch, then it's almost certainly a strength.

'Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood' Screenshot 3

Controllable tanks feature in a few missions.

Reason Four: The locales may blur, but the missions are distinctive and well constructed. With a couple of exceptions - one rather silly tank luring exercise and a bizarre 'blow-up ten hedges to reach objective' jaunt - they all feature the kind of gripping yet mundane activities that fill accounts like Band of Brothers. Silencing AT guns and MG nests, dealing with stray panzers, hunting-down mortar batteries, wheedling infantry from gardens, farms and hedge-lines... the bread-and-butter brutality of Operation Overlord.

Reason Five is slightly nebulous but worth stating all the same. EiB feels grittier - closer to its fascinating yet fearful inspiration - than any other military shooter out there. Much of that feel comes from the credible mission design and AI already mentioned but a significant portion stems from fundamentals like the way the weapons look, sound and perform. Gun sway has been reduced slightly for this sequel but shooting is still credibly hard. When you peer down the atmospheric iron sights of old favourites like the BAR and M1 or new weapons like the Grease Gun and the FG44 you don't have that ridiculous confidence that you get in other martial FPS. Just because a distant target is under your bobbing bead doesn't mean it's going to instantly crumple when you eagerly tug the trigger. You and your killing device are fallible. War is cruel like that.

Advertisement

Are you excited about Brothers In Arms: Earned In Blood on PC?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games

Thanks!

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

Comments: 1-19 of 19 in total

Poster
Comment Low-scoring comments hidden. Log in to see them!
space ace
07/10/05 @ 16:25
#1
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
they couldn't break-into a sprint or clamber over a low wall?

exactly my grudge. and when the game makes you sit still to explain tactics, it was the end. the design in this series is just so bewilderingly restrictive! i just wanna play...

GuiltySpark
07/10/05 @ 16:53
#2
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
the start of that review made me thinks it was gonna be a six or something.......
8bitMofo
07/10/05 @ 16:54
#3
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Number Six:
Why only have this franchise running on Windows 2000 and XP?
There is nothing wrong with Windows 98!!
NAC
07/10/05 @ 17:22
#4
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Man you guys are really churning out the reviews now how many is that now in the space of a couple of weeks?!!!

Keep up the good work
smoothpete
07/10/05 @ 17:33
#5
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Does it get better towards the end?
speedstars13
07/10/05 @ 17:52
#6
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
We need war games with differnt point of views other than the typical American. Like German or Jap, or the Frenchy. Hey even better the Vietcong!
rauper [staff]
07/10/05 @ 18:07
#7
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
NAC: Thanks! About another 50 to come before the end of the month!
Tyronne
07/10/05 @ 18:16
#8
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Now the cynical side in me says that a good majority of those how buy this already have the first one,so why was this not released as a add on for about 15 quid or so instead of the 30 quid mark.
Its this reason which stopped me from getting the doom 3 add on until it reached a more reasonable level (got it for 12 quid instead of the orignal 30) and its this reason why I wont be buying this.
deepmenace
07/10/05 @ 18:49
#9
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
co-op makes this worth the purchase for me.

2 people - control a team each.

the demo is one of the most involving co-op lan experiences i've had.
BremXJones
07/10/05 @ 21:13
#10
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
The Co-op on this is actually really good fun. The main game is - well - pretty much the same as the last one. But for Co-op fans, it's definitely worth considering.

KG
monkeymagic
07/10/05 @ 21:48
#11
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Mapster- It's £15 on all formats in HMV at the moment, GAME too i believe...
markypants
07/10/05 @ 23:26
#12
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I bought the first one because of all the hype, but found it to be repetitive, and boring... Horses for courses I guess.

Didn't realise this was PC... Have heard it is better on PC than consoles?
Edited 1 times, most recently on 08/10/05 @ 00:27
Kingsadist
08/10/05 @ 00:44
#13
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Actually, it might even be worse on PC. The whole set-up is still horribly console-y, so most PC-FPS vets will definitely be turned off by it. I mean, things like not being able to lean, go prone and cook grenades are almost a must in modern PC-FPS games, and it should at the very least be possible to switch between toggle and press functions for certain actions: it just sucks having to press the RMB each time to bring up AND lower the sights...
Talha
08/10/05 @ 02:44
#14
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Number 7: Was it all that necessary to churn out a sequel in six months? One usually does not expect it from Ubisoft.

Also, the game is VERY good, but the graphics are disappointing. But that might be my ignorance, since I played the first one straight after finishing HL2 and maybe war shooters are inherently less good looking due to the amount of detail that has to be put in. Am I right?
Bursk
08/10/05 @ 17:30
#15
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
The game uses Starforce, so you may want to knock roughly 8 points off the score.
kangarootoo
09/10/05 @ 02:37
#16
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Interesting review format, but I think I quite liked it. Not much detail on what actually comprises gameplay, but I've played RtH30 so in my case the extra detail wasn't necessary.

Anyway, enough review critique (which I thought I had agreed with myself not to do anymore).

The real point I want to make is, co-op mode? GET IN!! I rather liked RtH30 and was rather disappointed when I saw the multiplayer modes had no co-op option. This new titles moves to the "to rent" queue of my mind, pending further approval after which it can move to the purchase queue.

In other news, tried to rent Far Cry Instincts today, but all the copies were out. Bloody general public, messing with my shit once again :).
groovychainsaw
10/10/05 @ 10:16
#17
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
is it split screen co-op? Or just over lan? Cos my housemate doesn't want to buy another xbox just to play this on co-op (even though they're not that expensive ;-)
McGuffin
21/10/05 @ 23:44
#18
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"Number One. Anyone getting their WW2 education primarily from this game would think that the German army's sole preparation for D-Day was to commandeer every single crate, barrel and oil drum in Western Europe, ship them to Normandy, then arrange them in neat barriers every twenty metres or so."

If that's your number one gripe concerning the historical accuracy of the Brothers in Arms franchise, then it's quite obvious that Gearbox has done an awesome job. At least it's not like most games, where they commandeer every single crate, barrel and oil drum in a place that is kind of like Western Europe, and ship them to a place that is kind of like Normandy, and then arrange them in neat barriers every twenty metres or so even though it doesn't help their gameplay.

"Number Two. (and this is connected to number one) What in God's name do the good people of north-west France manufacture their doors from? It has to be some-kind of bullet-proof, boot-proof miracle timber; why else would soldiers on both sides insist on doing 98 per cent of their fighting in the open air."

This was entirely a gameplay decision. Let's assume you're leading your squad well, and then you encounter enemy troops. Quick! Think fast, or else your squad dies! Hey, there's a fence! You order your men there and they're safe, for now. In your fantasy world, they all get creamed by the enemy forces because there is realistic bullet penetration. In Gearbox's world, you made the correct decision to save your squad's asses and you are not punished for it. Trade-offs need to be made in game design. Evidentally, you don't realize this.

"Number Three. Were the American's toughest troopers really so out-of-condition in 1944 that they couldn't break-into a sprint or clamber over a low wall? Were they really so encumbered with kit that they wouldn't lean round corners just in case the weight of grenades hanging from their webbing caused them to topple over and flounder on the ground like upturned beetles. The fear of falling and never being able to get up again would certainly explain why troops are so reluctant to press their bellies into the damp protective Normandy earth."

Let me quote a part of the book by Donald R. Burgett "Currahee":
"My personal equipment consisted of ..... rifle, .45 automatic pistol, trench knife, jump knife, hunting knife, machete, one cartridge belt, two bandoliers, two cans of machine gun ammo totaling 676 rounds of .30 ammo, 66 rounds of .45 ammo, one Hawkins mine capable of blowing the track off a tank, four blocks of TNT........six fragmentation grenades, one Gammon grenade, one orange and one red smoke grenade...."

Man, I don't know what you consider out of shape. They shouldn't be able to leap over fences and sprint, they're carrying 80+ pounds of equipment! Some men took nearly twice the equipment and jumped with a full 150 pounds!

"Number Four. Did Gearbox's set-out to create one of the nastiest grenade hurling systems known to Man or was it just a happy accident? Pineapple-tossing is obviously more art than science but should I really have to stare at the sky and cross my fingers to hit a barn-door just across the lane."

I agree with you to a point on this one, it is, however, important to point out that when you throw anything like a grenade (read: football, baseball) you're never looking straight forward and throw with just your arm. You lean back, and throw all your body weight into it. While this is obviously exaggerated ingame, it's nowhere near as unrealistic as you make it out to be.

"Number Five. If contemporary shooters have a list of golden rules then somewhere very near the top must be "If you can see it then you should be able to put a slug in it." Though EiB seems slightly better than Road to Hill 30 in this respect, there are still too many occasions where you pop away for ages at exposed helmets (anyone that so much as sniggers at that remark will get an instant detention) and do no damage whatsoever."

You're completely disregarding context to make your point. Yes, most contemporary shooters abide by this rule, but most contemporary shooter's gameplay doesn't hinge on squad combat. Find, Fix, Flank, Finish. These are the rules for Brothers in Arms.


In conclusion, I feel your reasons for hating this game are not founded on hard fact, but rather much too subjective to be considered seriously. Things aren't as simple as you make them out to be, and you completely fail to take into account the trade-offs that must be made when developing each and every video game.
Spanker
29/12/05 @ 10:34
#19
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Fun IS always subjective BTW. Played the first and liked it then. Got this one and it seems to have dated for me. Graphics not great after Call of Duty 2. But the things that drives me nuts are the points the reviewer makes. It feels just like a 3D WWII pacman to me. The level design is incredibly simple and restrictive. Cover is always the same height (barrels, haybales, crates, hedges is all.. yawn) and you can't climb ANY of it. Haven't worked out what the jump key is FOR..(!?) All cover is placed at right angles to each other, so you just move around all the square angled maze like pacman until you get a clear shot at the Nazis. Bad case of sequalitis for me..

Comments: 1-19 of 19 in total

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

X View gallery