Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30

 PC
User Score
7.3

Mixed or average reviews- based on 218 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 129 out of 218
  2. Mixed: 58 out of 218
  3. Negative: 31 out of 218
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. DeanK.
    Mar 20, 2005
    3
    Big Disappointment. As realisitic as a chocolate kettle.
  2. BruceT.
    Apr 1, 2005
    4
    I agree that this is an overrated game. Tried this game because of the high Metascore. Poor graphics. Just based on flanking tactics, and gets pretty monotonous and annoying sometimes. Not to mention that pressing F5 gets you to change cameras but not told in the documentation on how to revert to first-person mode.
  3. DickM.
    Mar 21, 2005
    6
    Disappointing. Very scripted. All action is based on flanking trick. Outdated graphics. Sound is too quiet and no EAX support.
  4. TimR.
    Apr 1, 2005
    4
    I've never played a game that got such good industry reviews and failed to come even close to those reviews. I keep thinking I must have played a different game. I just don't get - this game is not fun. It is incredibly repetitive. Every mission - find the enemy, supress the enemy, flank the enemy, kill the enemy. And it's not like you can really choose how you are going to I've never played a game that got such good industry reviews and failed to come even close to those reviews. I keep thinking I must have played a different game. I just don't get - this game is not fun. It is incredibly repetitive. Every mission - find the enemy, supress the enemy, flank the enemy, kill the enemy. And it's not like you can really choose how you are going to do the above; there is usually only one or two paths to flank.… Expand
  5. Matt
    Aug 3, 2007
    3
    I had such hopes that this would be a good game, but instead, it was a bad minigame drawn out to cover the plot. The mechanics of the minigame are simple: see the Germans, shot in the general direction of the Germans, tell your squad to stop taking cover from the wrong direction and shoot at the Germans, walk over to the Germans, shoot the Germans. The friendly AI is so useless that I had such hopes that this would be a good game, but instead, it was a bad minigame drawn out to cover the plot. The mechanics of the minigame are simple: see the Germans, shot in the general direction of the Germans, tell your squad to stop taking cover from the wrong direction and shoot at the Germans, walk over to the Germans, shoot the Germans. The friendly AI is so useless that despite the levels constant attempts to railroad you into using this tactic, I found it more effective to order my squad to sit in the corner while I single-handedly slaughtered the Germans. The weapons behave as an experienced shooter would expect them too, in the hands of untrained game developers. The German AI compensates for the flaws in the American AI, demonstrating a complete inability to use grenades effectively, cover their flanks or rear, or even utilize the old tactic from Wolf 3d and gang up on the poor Americans. On authentic difficulty, the weapons are still almost completely useless, requiring multiple head and chest hits to bring down a German. Fortunately, the Germans have the same problem, allowing you to simply charge enemy riflemen, emptying the clip of a Thompson into them, and ignoring the hits you take in the process. Perhaps most disappointing was the fact that for all their efforts and attention to detail in historical accuracy, the levels were essentially long clear tunnels. If pinned down by a German machine gun in the street, it might seem reasonable to jump the fence beside the road and take cover in the ditch, move forward and flank, right? Wrong. The fence should be easily cleared, but it is in actuality the base of an invisible wall. Such invisible walls abound, in order to ensure that the path chosen by the game designers is the path the player follows. All in all, this feels less like playing a game, and more like playing a role in a movie, only instead of a script, you simply have a director yelling at you whenever you do anything that isn't what he wants.… Expand
  6. JoshP.S.
    Oct 18, 2009
    8
    A fairly solid tactical historical shooter. The only major faults are with the contextual commands- occasionally causing you to order your squad to attack when you want them to move, and to mount guns when you want to reload- and the friendly AI occasionally not firing when they have clear shots and not always using cover intelligently, but for the most part they make themselves useful. A fairly solid tactical historical shooter. The only major faults are with the contextual commands- occasionally causing you to order your squad to attack when you want them to move, and to mount guns when you want to reload- and the friendly AI occasionally not firing when they have clear shots and not always using cover intelligently, but for the most part they make themselves useful. It also isn't the best looking game given its age, looking obviously like an Xbox port. All that said, it's still an engrossing FPS that's a welcome diversion from arcade-style WWII shooters like the Call of Duty and Medal of Honor games. Worth a go if slower, more cerebral rather than twitchy FPS are your thing.… Expand
  7. SagatO.
    Mar 21, 2005
    5
    The big issue with this game on the PC are the bugs. A massive amount of people are currently unable to play it, even on relatively new systems. They are now left in limbo until the developer releases its v1.03 patch. Regardless of whether the game is good or not (and yes it is very good) there can be no forgiveness for rushing the game to the shelves before it has been properly tested on The big issue with this game on the PC are the bugs. A massive amount of people are currently unable to play it, even on relatively new systems. They are now left in limbo until the developer releases its v1.03 patch. Regardless of whether the game is good or not (and yes it is very good) there can be no forgiveness for rushing the game to the shelves before it has been properly tested on a variety of chipsets. People paying $40+ for a game and meet the minimum system specs on the box should not be left waiting for patches!… Expand
  8. Ralph
    Apr 11, 2005
    8
    Quite realistic. Certainly not a game that you can use gung ho tactics in. Forces you t think through each encounter. Nice step up from Call of Duty. Load times are a little on the slow side. 1 minute to start, 30 seconds to restart.
  9. MinhN.
    Mar 26, 2005
    5
    I play a lot of FPS' and this is quite overrated. It is way too scripted. The maps are much too small. The AI isn't that great, the soldiers have a lot of problems following orders at times so you end up doing a lot on your own. And like other reviewers state all you do is flank enemy positions and then go to the next point and repeat. The game is much too monotonous. Farcry and I play a lot of FPS' and this is quite overrated. It is way too scripted. The maps are much too small. The AI isn't that great, the soldiers have a lot of problems following orders at times so you end up doing a lot on your own. And like other reviewers state all you do is flank enemy positions and then go to the next point and repeat. The game is much too monotonous. Farcry and Call of Duy are better games.… Expand
  10. AndrewW.
    Apr 13, 2005
    4
    If you are expecting to find good AI and multiplayer co-op, you will be disappointed. This is just another scripted shooter like COD and MOH, with multiplay tacked on half finished and poorly implemented. When playing over a LAN with two players, you cannot both choose the same side v the computer. The bots are too dumb and need a human to lead them around. You cannot manually enter an IP If you are expecting to find good AI and multiplayer co-op, you will be disappointed. This is just another scripted shooter like COD and MOH, with multiplay tacked on half finished and poorly implemented. When playing over a LAN with two players, you cannot both choose the same side v the computer. The bots are too dumb and need a human to lead them around. You cannot manually enter an IP address for the server and there is no dedicated server or mission/map editor. The maps are small and there is no random respawning. It gets boring and predictable very quickly. Don't waste your money on buying this new, there will be a lot of used copies going cheaply on Ebay, mine included.… Expand
  11. 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 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 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
  12. OwenT.
    May 5, 2007
    6
    This game is based on the hype around band of brothers, saving private ryan and like movies. Not that this is bad, but you need to add something original to stand out and not get boring. The developers did not try. they slavishy put everything what is part of the band of brothers trade in it: the melancholic overvoice, the dramatic music(stings!!! more strings!!!) and the reluctant This game is based on the hype around band of brothers, saving private ryan and like movies. Not that this is bad, but you need to add something original to stand out and not get boring. The developers did not try. they slavishy put everything what is part of the band of brothers trade in it: the melancholic overvoice, the dramatic music(stings!!! more strings!!!) and the reluctant hero(s). What is a pity is that you can't skip these ramblings of fantasy and you are forced to sit through them all. And then what is it? The game can best be described as a simple squad based shooter. It is basic because they stripped the shooter part to it's bare minimum: you can''t run, lean, lie down and aim properly. And even when you get close to a german you notice that your weapons are underpowered. It takes a full clip to kill one. An strinking example of this weakness is the grenade. When it detonates, you need to be very close to get harmed, less than a meter, and then it does hardly any damage or fails to stun opponents. Of course this was done on purpose. If this was a call of duty with a team added to it, you might ditch the team and go on your own. Because you would do this because your teammates are to stupid to be left on their own and need constant watching. So to prevent you from dumping them and to force you to work with the team they make you weak. But amazingly enough, the team tactics are very basic too: you can't command indvidual members nor assign members to groups, or arm them as you want them and you can only give them a few basic commands. In addition the game is very scripted. As in a shooter you run along one path. In this game however the path has somewhat been widened to allow you to 'Flank the enemy'. Because that is what the developer hit upon. Each and everytime the germans conveniently appear in small groups consisting of 2 to 4 men, take up position behind some cover where they stay until you have killed them. You assign one team to pin them, and you or another team move in from the flank. Luckily the german will fall for this same tactic each and every time. Germans won't attack you except in scripted moments or pin your team even if you are under fire from a mg, they leave their positions open to flanking fire and rear attacks, won't shift their positions,leave strongpoints open to the rear and won't cover the approaches or each others positions, and setup mg's and guns only to shoot out to one direction and finally: germans seldom use grenades(but we know why now). Brothers in Arms therefore quickly becomes boring. If you want proper based squad based game I would advise to try out SWAT IV or Rainbow Six.… Expand
  13. kanefriessner
    Jul 17, 2012
    4
    This game is one of the worst ww2 games I ever seen. The graphics is not good (see another games from 2005 for eg. COD2 to comparison) but it's not bad. The story is not bad, but a little boring. The fighting is not so good in the game. Usually, you have to shoot 5-10 bullets into your enemy's body to kill him. It's ridiculous. Your teammate's AI is poor. They running like chickens in theThis game is one of the worst ww2 games I ever seen. The graphics is not good (see another games from 2005 for eg. COD2 to comparison) but it's not bad. The story is not bad, but a little boring. The fighting is not so good in the game. Usually, you have to shoot 5-10 bullets into your enemy's body to kill him. It's ridiculous. Your teammate's AI is poor. They running like chickens in the garden. When someone is killed in your fireteam it's a big problem you think. But it's not! He will be there in the next mission. How? What is it? Brothers in Arms: Return to Castle Wolfenstein? Another bad point is the fighting against armour. Your Stuart can easily destroy a Stug III. But the Stug can't even hit your tank. Yes, a 37 mm tank gun can easily penetrate a 50 mm armour, but when the Stug's 75 mm tank gun fires and hits the Stuart, it's 50 mm armour is still up. Is this realism for you? I don't think so. And the "flanking". The game says in the start to flank your enemy every time you can. But how can I flank the enemy when the maps are not enough wide for it. There is not enough space to flank (except one or two times). If you want realism, good AI, good story, good gameplay or good graphics, then don't try it! Otherwise it's your game.… Expand
  14. 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 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 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
  15. Horrux
    Mar 13, 2012
    4
    Is it worth playing you ask? Well, if your ambition is to play EVERY WW2 game around, then maybe yes. The graphics are poor. The animations are poor. The AI is poor. It's a poor game. Is it super-awful? No. No game-breaking bugs either. It's just that the fun factor ranks up to the tune of "ever so slightly" fun. Replay MOHAA if you can instead. Give this one a pass, because if you reallyIs it worth playing you ask? Well, if your ambition is to play EVERY WW2 game around, then maybe yes. The graphics are poor. The animations are poor. The AI is poor. It's a poor game. Is it super-awful? No. No game-breaking bugs either. It's just that the fun factor ranks up to the tune of "ever so slightly" fun. Replay MOHAA if you can instead. Give this one a pass, because if you really enjoy it, you must be brain dead. 5/10.… Expand
  16. VaxutopiaV.
    Apr 3, 2005
    4
    Really disappointed. It's overrated for sure!! can't complain about that! i've played so many WWII games in the last couple of years and this one is just "mediocre". The graphics are poor but i think that the engine has his limitations. Poor gameplay, always the same situation again and again!! Even if CoD is more arcade, i think it's better. For me the best tactical Really disappointed. It's overrated for sure!! can't complain about that! i've played so many WWII games in the last couple of years and this one is just "mediocre". The graphics are poor but i think that the engine has his limitations. Poor gameplay, always the same situation again and again!! Even if CoD is more arcade, i think it's better. For me the best tactical WWII Shooter is H&DII and his addon even with it's own problems.… Expand
  17. JohnH.
    Mar 30, 2005
    9
    Graphics are great and sounds are greater. Very Realistic indeed...
  18. 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 be better.
  19. RobertC.
    Mar 21, 2005
    7
    Gameplay seems quite funny, at least in the beginning. Unfortunately, being a PC game, it totally lacks the graphic and audio component. "Outdated" was the first thing I thought when I installed this game. Poor, very very poor details. Bad animations. Choppy ramerate even on high-end machines (22-30 fps when lucky). Good voice-comments though.
  20. MortenJ.
    Apr 2, 2005
    7
    The graphics are good - some great particle effects, a beautiful soft lighting and some very believable environments with plenty of grass and trees. The gameplay is bit repetetive but still quite enjoyable and at any rate, it is more innovative than games like medal of honour and call of duty - this time there is some strategy to the game :) But two major problems drag this game down; 1. The graphics are good - some great particle effects, a beautiful soft lighting and some very believable environments with plenty of grass and trees. The gameplay is bit repetetive but still quite enjoyable and at any rate, it is more innovative than games like medal of honour and call of duty - this time there is some strategy to the game :) But two major problems drag this game down; 1. The LOADTIMES are truly horrible - loading a level can take up to three minutes and reloading a checkpoint (quickloading) takes more than 1½ min. In a realistic game where u really cannot afford loosing much hp on any of your 7 men, it is absolutely devestating that u have to spend so much time watching a line grow from the left to the right of the screen. I really dont play the game very much as the 2 min. interruptions get more more frequent as the difficulty increases 2. this game is built un the unreal2 engine - a 2 years old, yet rather powerful, game engine for the pc. And what is this!??!?!?!?!? My framerate was around 5 fps at the beginning of a particular level (not caused by loading issues or too little system memory or graphic memory). bottomline is that Brothers in Arms is a good game, that sadly is spoiled by a poor engine...… Expand
  21. 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 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 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
  22. Chechoo4
    Sep 6, 2013
    10
    Yes, this is the best game about World War II, all the highlight of the game is not in the game, and in the plot. Compared with the plot Hollywood masterpieces suck.
  23. 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, 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    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
  24. ManlioM.
    Apr 5, 2005
    6
    Poor techincally speaking, but with great atmosphere surely the game has it flaws and they're quite annoying (poor AI, a l'le bit outdated graphics, poor interaction, linear gameplay) but for a BandofBrothers' fan could be interesting.
  25. VikramP.
    Mar 17, 2005
    10
    I rate this highly because i loved call of duty and medal of honor. i have been searching for the expansion pack of COD( united offensive) , but in vain..... i hope this game will be released in this part of the world(india) very soon, so that avid gamers like me can really enjoy FPS's like these.... by the way, when is it releasing in india????
  26. Robotron3000
    Mar 20, 2005
    6
    Graphics ok, enemy voices gets repetitive within 5 minutes. Animation is pretty bad, characters stick their guns through their arms. Tanks are unable to go over a 50cm earth wall or shoot through and overturned wooden cart. Tanks are unable to reverse, they'll rather show their rear to a panzerfaust. Squadmates are unwilling to jump the smallest obstacle and will instead run right outGraphics ok, enemy voices gets repetitive within 5 minutes. Animation is pretty bad, characters stick their guns through their arms. Tanks are unable to go over a 50cm earth wall or shoot through and overturned wooden cart. Tanks are unable to reverse, they'll rather show their rear to a panzerfaust. Squadmates are unwilling to jump the smallest obstacle and will instead run right out in front of enemy MGs. The game keeps telling you to flank the enemy, but then you run into invisible barriers. All in all a good try, but not very well executed.… Expand
  27. 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. 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 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
  28. 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 simply worked better.. unfortunately.
  29. MarcoP.
    Apr 4, 2005
    5
    Graphics= good for 2003 map=very small gameplay=not good longevity= disinstalled at day 3 of the campaign if you want a bad game , BIA is for you..
  30. AaronB.
    May 2, 2005
    9
    I don't know why people's opinion of this game vary so much, especially about ai. I found the ai in this game to be very good. The only time when there is a problem with the ai is when the engagements are very close. I shoot, and I find that the gun sway isn't as bad as everyone is making it out to be. This isn't as good as CoD, but its pretty good.
prev
Page:

Awards & Rankings

10
#10 Best PC Game of 2005
22
#22 Most Discussed PC Game of 2005
40
#40 Most Shared PC Game of 2005

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
87

Generally favorable reviews - based on 32 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 30 out of 32
  2. Mixed: 2 out of 32
  3. Negative: 0 out of 32
  1. Yahoo!
    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.
    Read full review
  2. IGN
    91
    Offering up engaging, squad-based battles and presenting it all in an authentic yet undeniably cinematic setting, Brothers in Arms is a game that, to borrow a phrase from General Patton, "grabs you by the nose and kicks you in the ass."
    Read full review
  3. Total Video Games
    90
    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.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »