Repetitive... but for a reason?
People keep stating that Earned in Blood was much like the first one. Now, bringing Halo's fanbase into all of this, we have a number of the Halo community angered by the second. Why? Many have complained that Halo 2 changed what was brilliance... into a brainless "soccer-mom" shooter. Even still, Bungie has many fans. Halo 2 wasn't a disaster, and their first makes up for where Halo 2 would have failed. They're in the safe zone.
Now, we get another game in the Brothers in Arms franchise. It's basically like the first, in every aspect. If Gearbox changed BiA drastically, they'd maybe get a 'Halo2sucks.com' of their own. Maybe they'd thought they'd stick with what people who enjoyed the first game can't really hate, but only tire of it. Halo 2 had time to change nearly everything. New graphical renders and models, new physics... And the like. But you get Halo 1 fans screamin' bloody rage at the television sets because of how it has changed.
I've seen people who can't stand Brothers in Arms because of its slower paced battles, in comparison to Call of Duty's and Medal of Honor's. I had no previous knowledge of Road to Hill 30 when I bought it, only that it was slowly becoming popular around the WW2 genre. Ten minutes in, I was enjoying it immensely. I was a huge fan of Saving Private Ryan, and Brothers in Arms brought back me back to that movie.
Also, I loved RTS games, as well as shooters. I couldn't get into Socom, it being a little too tactical for my tastes. But Brothers in Arms fit right into that slot.
Now, just because it's a sequel, it doesn't mean number two will just pick up off its spot of 'tactical shooter' and move to something MORE intense. It's a sequel. It's the same war. Nothing should really change. I mean, different tactics are used in different wars. They don't always change.
As a final address about the graphics, there are players who say that the graphics are really good, or really bad for its time, compared to games like Doom 3, Far Cry... I thought the character models sported a good deal of detail, but everything looked a little murky. I personally think that the look adds to the grim cinematic quality of it all. I'm very sure that Brothers in Arms could have had graphics like that of Call of Duty 2... a little shinier and refined. But then, I thought of Saving Private Ryan, and how it looked a little "weird". Almost like the quality of modern film makiing wasn't there. By this, I'm talking about the camera shots. Then I learned that the Director of Photography had tampered with the footage, to make the scenes like more aged-- almost like a documentry. So, you'd never see a bright blue sky, just a gun-metal grey.