Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood

 PC
User Score
7.4

Mixed or average reviews- based on 118 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 73 out of 118
  2. Mixed: 26 out of 118
  3. Negative: 19 out of 118
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. kanefriessner
    Jul 25, 2012
    4
    The same problems again. Weak graphics, teammates AI is too bad (but somehow the enemies AI is better), lack of realism (in the beginning of the game, one of our ally destroyed a Flakvierling with one Mk2 grenade). The flanking is not working again. If you have enough space for it, you get more enemies before your jaw. It makes the game challenging, but it's not funny. And of course, itThe same problems again. Weak graphics, teammates AI is too bad (but somehow the enemies AI is better), lack of realism (in the beginning of the game, one of our ally destroyed a Flakvierling with one Mk2 grenade). The flanking is not working again. If you have enough space for it, you get more enemies before your jaw. It makes the game challenging, but it's not funny. And of course, it makes the game slow, boring and frustrating. It's a bad ww2 game again.… Expand
  2. [Anonymous]
    Oct 20, 2005
    4
    I played it for a day and then gave up on it. i didnt find it fun... and although it seemed technically interesting... it was just annoying.
  3. John
    Oct 28, 2005
    4
    Action Trip's reviewer says it right. Agree with his comments totally. A marketing scheme to sell an add-on as a sequel while the original game is still "hot". OK game, but seen it all before and not enough differences. Same good points same bad points as original BIA. 'Nuff said.
  4. sinadoom
    Sep 29, 2011
    4
    Graphics are pretty bad. The actual gameplay is very repetitive and although it's challenging it certainly isn't fun. Realistic? Maybe. Frustrating, slow and boring? Most likely. It's not really a shooter and although it tries to be different, its flaws start to show when nobody plays multiplayer and the skirmish mode is bad as well. Nice idea, but bad execution.
  5. DarkoS.
    Oct 13, 2005
    1
    I really do not love much game.
  6. 2Barrels
    Nov 2, 2018
    0
    Worst game ever Worst game ever Worst game ever Worst game ever Worst game ever Worst game ever Worst game ever Worst game ever Worst game ever Worst game ever Worst game ever Worst game ever Worst game ever Worst game ever Worst game ever Worst game ever

Awards & Rankings

23
#23 Best PC Game of 2005
49
#49 Most Discussed PC Game of 2005
51
#51 Most Shared PC Game of 2005

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
84

Generally favorable reviews - based on 23 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 21 out of 23
  2. Mixed: 2 out of 23
  3. Negative: 0 out of 23
  1. 1UP
    95
    It's one of those sequels where all of the evolution takes place underneath the façade -- a game you've got to pick up and feel all the subtle differences. And of course, if Blood is your first Brothers experience, well, it's hard to imagine going back to anything less authentic and strategic.
    Read full review
  2. IGN
    88
    Only an incremental improvement on the original. The greater flexibility of the AI and the new multiplayer options are certainly welcome additions, but the game still feels... more like Brothers in Arms v1.5 than a full sequel.
    Read full review
  3. GameSpot
    87
    Earned in Blood offers a rather similar experience to its excellent predecessor, with improved enemy artificial intelligence and additional multiplayer options. The novelty has worn off just a bit, though.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »