Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood [PC]

Like a war-weary veteran trying to get some well-earned sleep, WWII shooters can't seem to stop coming back to D-Day. Brothers in Arms: Earning in Blood casts players as Sergeant Joe "Red" Hartsock, and opens as he's parachuting into Northern France in June 1944. While there's a little too much deja vu for some tastes, the game builds on the strengths of its outstanding predecessor, Road to Hill 30, to produce a tactically rich and deeply satisfying tour of duty.

How does Brothers in Arms set itself aside from the hundreds of other WWII shooters? By enabling players to make choices about their strategies, and not just forcing them into a pre-set battle plan. With two fire teams and half a dozen men under your command, Earning in Blood often plays more like a tactical strategy game than an out-and-out shooter. Try those run-and-gun tactics you've probably picked up from Call of Duty or Medal of Honor, and you'll get killed, fast.

Instead, Brothers in Arms all but requires you to "suppress" groups of enemies by instructing your teams to direct high volumes of lead in their general direction. Suppressed enemies return fire less and are not as accurate, so they're easier to assault. There's even a convenient icon above every squad that shows its suppression status.

But enemy units don't just stay put and take pot shots at you; they'll do their best to outflank your squad and give you a taste of your own medicine. More than a few times we were complacently watching our assault team storm a German emplacement only to be rudely interrupted by a surprise attack from the side or rear.

So with these smarter and more mobile enemies, is the game any harder? There's no doubt about it. While the same find-fix-flank-finish tactics will still stand you in good stead, you'll need to be much more aware of your surroundings. We found ourselves relying on the Situation Awareness view (which shows your soldiers and all enemy units together with their surroundings) far more than before, and right from the start of the game it's important to plan your moves in detail.

If you perform particularly badly, the game throws you a bone - you'll get the chance to restart that stage with a fully healed team. With no health packs or other immersion-breaking healing options in Earning in Blood to offset the smarter enemies, you'll sometimes be glad of the help.

Not content with turning up the difficulty, developer Gearbox has also made the game appreciably longer and focused more on urban combat. Both changes address shortcomings of Road to Hill 30, and both should please fans of the series. Fighting in and out of the buildings of Northern France is a lot more entertaining than endless fields, and the mission objectives make good use of the extra opportunities of the improved setting. Missions can flip from desperate urban assault to frenzied defense in seconds.

Earning in Blood, like its predecessor, doesn't feel the need to splatter bright colors and special effects all over Northern France. It's not a flashy game, but it is a smooth and realistic one. Perhaps "unobtrusive" is the best word for the visuals. Making do just fine with a muted, almost muddy palette, they lack the varnished look that many modern 3D games have, and the game is much more convincing for it.

On the sound front, here's more proof that World War II games must be fantastic opportunities for audio engineers. The game's gunfire, explosions, and incidental sound effects are nothing short of outstanding. Even the little details -- like the way you can hear the "ping" sound as your squad mate's M1 ejects its clip before he announces he's reloading -- help the immersion factor enormously.

The original Brothers in Arms was highly praised for its engrossing plot. Its sequel doesn't break new ground in the same way. Sure, it still doesn't feel the need to have soldiers talking like choirboys, and neither shies from nor glorifies the more unpleasant aspects of combat, but the flashback presentation of the missions lacks tension.

Lackluster voice-overs don't help matters. It's almost like Hartsock is sharing anecdotes over a beer or two rather than telling his tale of heroism against impossible odds. Sadly, while the writing is passable, the actors just don't have their hearts in their performances. After the last game proved so atmospheric, we can't help but feel a little let down. In a way, it's Gearbox's own fault -- if the original game hadn't spoiled us so much, our expectations would have been lower. Earning in Blood's story presentation would have been fine in any other game, but it doesn't quite match the stellar standards of its predecessor.

Multiplayer has no such concerns. Objective-based head-to-head missions mix with cooperative (or single-player) skirmish mode to provide an online and split-screen experience that's thoroughly satisfying. Leading a squad into a multiplayer fight really helps set Brothers in Arms' multiplayer apart from its competition.

If you're looking for a harder and longer version of Brothers in Arms, Earned in Blood fits the bill -- although it can be hard to shake the feeling that you've trudged through these fields and villages before. Still, to complain about originality in a World War II shooter is to take too much for granted. With outstanding AI, well-developed multiplayer options, and atmosphere that's at least in the same league as its illustrious predecessor, Earned in Blood won't fail to impress.