| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (7)

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
These metareviews are nice, but maybe you could pick a more diverse group of websites to quote from? Those three reviewers all work for the same guy.
Reply

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Haha. IGN gave it an 8.0.

/Go IGN
Reply

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
the first game was good, not great. The levels were kind of unremarkable, no wild large scale call of duty stuff. T

The strategic combat was cool but it definitly wasnt a mind blowing game.
Reply

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Did EA recently purchase Gamespy, or did they just comp them hookers per the industry standard bribe methodology?
Reply

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
100/100? This game is utterly perfect, in every single way? There isn't a single flaw in the entire game? It is going to be a timeless classic, never to be forgotten? This is a sequel, yet it is, according to GameSpy, completely perfect. That's amazing.

I can think of just three completely perfect games, and (embarrasingly) they're each sequels, but revolutionary in their own respective rights: Mario 64, Super Mario Bros. 3, and Street Fighter II Turbo. That's the list for me. But I guess Brother in Arms: Earned in Blood is on that level. Amazing.
Reply

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I enjoyed the first Brothers In Arms; however, the game simply fell short in its breadth. #3 makes some good points about the game, but I disagree on the level design, as I feel that it captured more realism than CoD.

One aspect about BIA that I hated is the multiplayer. Simply put, it was god awful. Terrible gameplay and an even worse means by which to connect to a game.

By merit (or lack thereof) of the multiplay, I would probably rate the game of 7 out of 10. I have yet to pick up the expansion, so I am very curious to see if the multiplayer has improved at all.
Reply

Posted: Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's better in every way.

I've only been playing a couple of days, and the enhanced enemy AI makes the Germans stay on the move. If you stay still they'll have you surrounded in no time. It's somewhat frustrating, but you'll find yourself shaking your head at how the enemy AI seems so much like you're fighting against human enemies. Edge-of-your-seat moments are plenty. The framerate gets a bit choppy at times, but not enough to ruin your game.

Gearbox fixed everything that was wrong with the first BIA, and added even more for your money. Co-op skirmish mode, improved multiplayer, and a better single-player storyline. There's a lot of replayability here. So far I only have a problem with some of the hokey voice acting. Hopefully that will improve with the next BIA installment.

In short, you'll have a much better time with this one than you had with BIA.

And at what point did an 8.2 become a bad rating? In Nitpicky Bitterland, maybe, but here on Earth 8.2 is still a very good game rating.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

WRUP: All the Reckoning

Posted on Feb 10th 2012 11:45PM

Xbox Live Indie Gems: Nyan Cat Adventure

Posted on Feb 10th 2012 10:15PM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW