Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30

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

   • 3 of 5 users found this helpful
2. Slerbabroukenengilsh

   Jun 17, 2008

   10

   The most realistic WW2 game indeed, I recommend playing it with hard difficulty setting to maximise the immersion. You will die alot, because The most realistic WW2 game indeed, I recommend playing it with hard difficulty setting to maximise the immersion. You will die alot, because only one enemy can kill you with a single shot, but once you learn to keep your head down and flank the enemy, it's one hell of a ride! Graphics are good enough- runs smoothly with olde r computers, sounds great- weapons and explosions have a realistic feel in them, Great animations and voice acting- soldiers act like living beings, hiding behind covers and yelling for each other in the heat of a battle. I highly recommend playing this game, you don't even have to like war games that much. Tactical elements and effort they put in realism separates Brothers In Arms from titles like Medal Of Honour and Call Of Duty.… Expand

   • 0 of 2 users found this helpful
4. NejcC.

   May 9, 2006

   9

   I thing this game is better than Call of Duty. Allies aren`t dying here on every corner. It`s more realistic. Sounds are great, graphic could I thing this game is better than Call of Duty. Allies aren`t dying here on every corner. It`s more realistic. Sounds are great, graphic could be better.… Expand

   • 0 of 1 users found this helpful
5. tupungato

   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

   • 0 of 1 users found this helpful
6. 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

   • 0 of 0 users found this helpful
7. BrianJ.

   Mar 20, 2005

   5

   I'm serious about the 5 rating. Not as good as the reviews lead you to believe. Wait a while and read player opinions on the forums. 1. I'm serious about the 5 rating. Not as good as the reviews lead you to believe. Wait a while and read player opinions on the forums. 1. Team commands are too simple. Either "follow me," "take cover," "covering fire," or "charge." A real step back from superior games like Operation Flashpoint where you can go stealth, re-assign soldiers to groups, etc. The soldiers pretty much shoot anything but miss when up close! You can't tell one to man a machine gun. The game essentially becomes an exercise of telling them to go there, go there, go there whenever you see a part of the "maze" where they can hide behind. 2. The "maze" factor is really annoying. Again, no comparison to Operation Flashpoint where you can really flank opponents by going anywhere ...not just around the enemy on a boring maze route that is so obvious it takes 10 seconds to find it. 3. Multiplayer is pretty frustrating. Its hard to find a server, you can't use server filters, you can't even refresh the server listing. Usually by the time you select a server it is already full or disconnected. Setting up your own game and waiting 20 minutes for other players is not fun, either. Once in the game, the gameplay is pretty simple and not as strategic as reviewers stated. Finally, you can have only 4 players at once in multiplayer...most of the time someone drops out and your stuck with 3. If you really like Call of Duty and scripted combat events, you can ignore this review. You'll enjoy it. If you were expecting a more open-ended adventure using strategic elements, I think you'll be disappointed after about 3 minutes. Eventually, some company will make a combat sim that is easy to play, has good AI, lots of combat options, is open-ended in terms of map landscape, and has decent multiplayer options. Unfortunately, this isn't it.… Expand

   • 0 of 0 users found this helpful
8. Broyax

   Oct 2, 2021

   0

   Gearbox Software avant de pondre ses merdes de Bordel-lands à la chaîne, faisait déjà d’autres merdes mais plus spécialisées, à savoir lesGearbox Software avant de pondre ses merdes de Bordel-lands à la chaîne, faisait déjà d’autres merdes mais plus spécialisées, à savoir les ‘Brothers in Arms’ qui se déroulent pendant la Seconde Guerre Mondiale et passent la brosse à reluire sur les grands héros de la grande patrie, venus sauver la France et le monde et patati et patata…
   
   J’insiste là-dessus, car dans ce ‘Road to Hill 30’ comme dans les autres ‘BIA’, c’est toujours la vieille rengaine pour les soldats amerloques et la brosse à reluire tout au premier degré. Et avec la langue pour le ‘finish’. Ouais, ouais, ouais… vraiment des mangeboules, chez Gearbox Software !
   
   Les cinématiques sont donc longues et ridicules, très empruntées et solennelles et… on ne peut pas les zapper ! la musique en fait des tonnes et donne envie de donner des coups de pied au clavier. Même pour un jeu datant de 2005, on remarque bien vite que ce ‘BIA’ est clairement et… étonnamment laid ou carrément vilain, c’est selon. Et je parle sur PC, j’ose pas imaginer sur les consoles de l’époque !
   
   En tout cas, il s’agit du même principe des ‘BIA’ dans ce ‘RTH30’, c’est-à-dire de donner un ou deux ordres à ses soldats pour qu’ils clouent un ennemi au sol (tir de suppression) pendant qu’on fait le tour et qu’on les flingue sur le flanc. C’est très répétitif, très limité et… rapidement répétitif puisque c’est toujours pareil ! de toute façon, cet enculé de jeu m’a pondu un écran bleu avant de charger une mission… alors, va chier, jeu de merde !… Expand

   • 0 of 0 users found this helpful

See all 62 User Reviews