Brothers in Arms: Road To Hill 30 (PS2)

Con
1) Rag doll physics could have been better
2) Dialogue between you and and other troopers sounds a little forced at times.
3) You may be surprised at just how quickly you progress through the game. At ten hours (roughly) you'll be screaming for more.

Pro
1) Strategy element excellent. Splitting an enemy line in half with the help of your fire and assault team is quite simply, a buzz.
2) No riddiculous canteen/medical packs to pick up. Out there, you keep your head down 'cause sometimes it's a long haul back to that last restart point.
3) Monologues from lead character, Baker, are sedate, reflective and in keeping with the probable mood of a frontline leader.
3) Lack of music during levels is not a problem. Ambient sound and a variety of gunfire is what you'd expect. In between levels you get a decent orchestral score.
4) Gameplay is a blast. Curious sense of fun and danger balance together perfectly. On even partularly tough levels where you find yourself dying a lot, you cannot help yourself having just one more try.
5) I think the PS2 graphics are fine. I mean, it's Normandy during WW2 so you get mud and lots of grass and hedges. Character animations and tank movements are all ok too. Certainly nothing in this department should stop you buying the game.

That's it. If you loved MOH Frontline when you played it but hated the follow up, (whatever that rubbish was called...) or if you love WW2 stuff and were totally let down by Call of Duty, then Brothers in Arms is really worth a try. I've never gotten rid of my old MOH Frontline disk. I reckon BIA might be one 'for keeps' as well.

Having control of the squad allows for a less rigid and clearcut progress through missions as oppossed to the more linear MOH & Call of Duty, as various different tactics can be used on each level in order to progress.

Graphics - the description given on many reviews of 'BIA' implies that the graphics a far below MOH / COD - this is inaccurate. While at times MOH may be smoother, I found the BIA graphics still above most PS2 titles & in no way detterred from the game.

AI - The effectiveness of the AI cannot be underatted, especially in the harder settings. Enemy troops will actively respond to your movements - eg, by attempting to prevent your squad flanking them etc. Also as mentioned in another review, the AI of your men is also superb, with suicidal commands being rejected. This all adds to a greater sense of realism then in MOH / COD

The lack of health pickups & stats may dissapoint some gamers, however I felt that both led to a greater realism, as you focus on survival & success rather then the obtainment of prizes.

Accuracy, the disputes re the accuracy of levels, weapons and locations as mentioned in some reviews, are petty self congratulatory and frankly unneccessary. As somebody with a degree in History & who focussed primarily on WW2, I can honestly say that any inaccuracies were minor & unworthy of mention - afterall its a game, not a history lesson, some liberties are always going to be taken for entertainment sake.

The dialogue was worthwhile & to say it sounded forced seems somewhat harsh - arent most like this (in particular COD & 'Nam 67, being far worse examples). The lack of music in the actual levels was compensated with a decent score in between missions & as bonusses for completion of the game under authentic settings.

The reviewer who oppossed the swearing & gore, should be reminded that this is a game based on combat & with a age-rating aswell. In combat both Gore & bad language do occur with regularity - to think otherwise or be surpirsed by this shows naivety on the part of the gamer when the game was purchased - neither detracts from the game itself - if anything, both add realism.

OVERALL - anybody who enjoyed the MOH series or COD will find this a much more rewarding, less linear game, in which the relative shortness of the game is compensated for by the increased difficulty in other modes - highly worthy of purchase.