There was an opportunity for this series to succeed, but the chance literally diminished in front of their eyes.
Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood takes place about the same time Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30 ended. This time around, however, you jump into the shoes of Corporal Joe Hartsock, who is telling the whole story in a flashback. Needless to say, you decide what to do and where to go while in his flashback. If you played the first game, you already know what you can expect, and if you haven't, you should expect it anyways. While games like Medal of Honor tend to focus on some sort of story and gameplay, Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood tries to make the gamer feel like they are there. It's hard to actually accomplish this, unless your drunk at 3 A.M. in the morning while playing.
Like the first game, Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood will throw you right into the action so you better devise on what you need to do to keep moving. Since the game feels sorry for you and doesn't want to make you a loner, you are accompanied by a fellow squad of soldiers. Much like the first game, the squad commands and controls are really the same thing, but if you have played something such as Full Spectrum Warrior, you can expect at least a bit of knowledge about controlling and commanding your squad in this game. Strategy is definitely involved, and I can go as far as saying that it is more strictly involved than the first game. You really can't go ahead and blast anything in your sight because a few shots is all it takes for you to kiss the ground. Obviously, all of the strategic elements involve your squad members, so get used to them being there. The dismal part is that you can't control your squad member by member, or in other words, by one. It's an all or nothing type of element, you are either commanding the squad to do certain things, or you are not.
Even with the strategic priorities, the whole game is linear and rather straightforward. Think of it as a large vertical hall, and within the hall are spots where you must use these strategic elements to move on and continue the task. You are not necessarily forced to do this, but if you feel like the best gamer ever then you can play it as any way you please. It just helps to use different types of strategies for battling the enemies.
Now, let's move from decent stuff to horrible stuff. The A.I. is terrible. Heck, the A.I. is not even close to average. The first game had great A.I. because they were both smart and challenging. The A.I. would know what to do, and would use every possible strategy to kill you. Now, for Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood, it seems like the A.I. drove at 80 MPH into a wall. The A.I. can pinpoint where exactly you are, whether you are in a bunker or behind a crate. This literally makes taking cover completely useless. Apparently, the A.I. thinks you have a big light bulb over your head with something like, "Kill me and you get a reward of $50,000!" because they will most likely ignore your squad members. Yes, at times they do attack your squad members, but you can easily notice they just want you dead rather than anyone else. You see, this kind of eliminates the "realistic" motto that the Brothers in Arms series is known for. It kills a large chunk of the realistic experience, and that's something you can't repair without reasoning.
The squad's A.I. is a tad better, but nothing to cheer about. The squad listens to your every command and does it accordingly. They might get in your way while your trying to take down an enemy, and this can get annoying. I have also seen one of my members go prone in the middle of the darn battlefield until you tell him to get into position or something along those lines. The A.I. overall is a complete disaster, and it makes you think thoroughly, "What in the world happened?"
The multiplayer is fairly decent and at times, quite fun. The old mode is back, which allows you to play against another person with squads, trying to complete an objective. If that doesn't heat up the soup, then there are a couple of other new modes worth trying out, such as the new Skirmish mode which is a lot of fun, but sort of gets tedious when playing for a while. Co-op is also available now, and that is also very rewarding to play if you need to shave off a few hours of the day.
Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30 didn't have any earth-shattering visuals, and Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood doesn't stray away from that. Expect the same old visuals you experienced back in early 2005, with nothing else that has been changed. Like before, the explosions do look pretty good, but the whole scenery and whatnot drags the visual department just above sea level, or in other words, average and decent.
If you can only talk about one great, above average feature in Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood, that should be the sound department. This is quite honestly the best part in the whole package. While it isn't perfect in any way, it's still worth noting because it's real good. The voices of enemies and allies screaming, shouting, and talking are done nicely. Tune up the Surround Sound and you got an experience like no other. The explosions and sounds of your weapon firing as well as others are eminent and successful.
Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood is XBOX Live compatible, like the first game. The same features and multiplayer aspects of the first game have been carried onto the second, along with newer modes that are thrown into the mix. Most of these modes require a smart brain rather than pure power to defeat the opponent or complete the objective. Like the single-player, you can't rush and expect to wipe out the whole enemy squad, because that most likely will not happen. If you have a personality like that, Counter-Strike is the game for you. Otherwise, the modes available here will please you for some time.
So what really went wrong here? Simple - it just isn't the same. While some features retain their appearances, others have either gone terribly wrong or aren't just around anymore. An example would clearly be the A.I. They are best put like a coin flip because they can just retaliate in all the wrong ways, or on the other hand, blow off your cover since they seem to know where you are at all times. This kills a majority of the realistic experience that was found in the first game. The first game had a reason to be on the market, but this time around, they threw the fish in the lake since they didn't care anymore. The enhanced multiplayer is a great time-waster and will take a chunk out of your day, and the sound is really done quite well. But sadly, that's all the good things you can say about Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood. The first game had a superb single-player but a quite terrible multiplayer, while Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood has a great multiplayer but a degraded single-player. Like a game of checkers, the more knowledge you have, the better advantage you got. Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood took the full pot of "advantage" and burned the "knowledge" into a crisp, and that's what is disappointing. There was an opportunity for this series to succeed, but the chance literally diminished in front of their eyes. I guess that's what happens when you release a sequel 7 months after the first one came out.