Ubisoft made a smart choice in taking "Brothers in Arms" in a slightly different direction from the "Call of Duty" and "Medal of Honor" series. Rather than trying to one-up those games, which had nearly perfected the WWII FPS and exhausted the storylines, BiA drops the player into the role of a paratrooper in charge of various platoons of allies. Rather than focusing on unlikely individual heroics, BiA places prime importance on field vision and management of people and resources.

It is not however a slow paced isometric strategy game. Protagonist Matt Baker engages the enemy in first-person perspective, while issuing basic commands to his company. The control scheme is surprisingly simple, yet allows for a nifty combination of commands. So a player can go Rambo for a time if he desires, or drop into the background and play field general. Both options are surprisingly satisfying. There are occasional pathing and AI failures, where apparently logical commands lead your men into MG gunfire. But more often the game's intelligence pleasantly surprised rather than disappointed me.

The major strategic concept used (ad nauseum) is the simple "flank" maneuver. Baker is usually given two platoons, one of which is ideal for supressing fire, the other for end-arounds. Although due to some constrictive level designs, this tactic sometimes fails. AT times the squad is forced through narrow corridors, resulting in inevitable heavy casualties regardless of strategy. The environments lean more towards Call of Duty than Medal of Honor in terms of openness, but I still often wished for more creative avenues to accomplish my mission. I thoroughly enjoyed the missions where I was given charge of Sherman or Grant tanks. There are some occasional pathing problems with the tanks, and a few inexplicable stuck points, but it was great fun watching my armor come in from the side and blow an MG42 nest sky high.

I was impressed with the game's visuals. Capable of 480p widescreen, BiA renders an amazing amount of lush vegetation which, when combined with earth berms, offers usable cover. I was pretty amazed at the fairly steady framerates rendered on the old Xbox, considering all the greenery and intense action. Player, weapon, and tank models are rendered realistically. Even the occasional water effects, which players can tread chest high, look sharp. Building details are a bit dull, but the game rarely vetures into interiors anyway.

The one area the game fails in is sound quality. Oddly for a game by a big-name publisher, BiA clearly didn't put the resources into good sound recording. Player voices are OK: the typical WWII grunt stereotypes are all well represented (grizzled CO, nervous smart guy, overconfident jerk guy, etc.). Every other bang, pop, or boom is weak and tinny though. Every firearm sounds like a capgun, explosions sound like the TNT is wrapped in pillows, and the tank engines barely gurgle. It sounds like a piddling complaint, but I couldn't get over the unrealistic combat sounds in a game that otherwise built a nearly tangible world of war.

As a word of warning, BiA is more graphic, both visually and audibly, than the MoH or CoD series. So don't be surprised by the f-word and gore. To me, it was well worth the few idiosyncracies to enjoy a new, strategic perspective on WWII shooter gameplay.

You know, I am sick of all the hype about this game by a bunch of weenies that don't seem to know real combat, real weapons or realism of any sort beyond what they see on their TV screens.

This game is not the authentic real life war on-the-battlefield war game that all the geeks are hyping and signing the party line the company puts out.

I bought two of these games after reading the reviews and I have to say that you people don't know what you are talking about.

There is pseudo-realism and that is about it. Sure the maps are close, the look and sounds of the weapons are close and even the dialog is about right, but that is about as far as it goes.

These games fall down severely on the accuracy/authenticity in several key areas.

1.Ludicrous restriction on the tactical options available to the soldiers and the squad leaders. Some of this is bad level design, some of it is probably trying to make up for the limitations of their AI, and some of it is just plain dumb.

2. Ridiculous limitations on interaction with the environments. You cannot open doors or windows. You cannot climb fences. You cannot use the wire cutters that every paratroop carried. You cannot go under a normal barbed wire fence, which thousands of hunters do several times a day in america.

Barrels and crates don't blow up or even move when hit by a tank. You can't even climb over a low wall that some other men just went over.

Perhaps most unforgivable of all, you cannot go into a prone position or crawl. You know, the stuff they teach everyone in BASIC TRAINING!

3. The gunsights are ludicrous. The amount of creep even in a crouching position is ridiculous. If I was that shakey I'd head for the retirement home.

4. Terrible path blocking and object collision detection. Quite a few times when I had a perfect view of a target and as perfect a sight picture as you would ever want I could not hit the target no matter how many rounds I fired. In real life I would have put a round through both ears of my target.

5. Absurd size of the weapons relative to your field of vision when zoomed in. Come on folks this is ridiculously UN-authentic. There is a reason for the open sights on fast action weapons like the Thompson and other SMG weapons.

6. Really stupid scenario designs. There are several instances where you are put face to face with tanks and no tactical options except to run for enemy panzerfausts. Making this worse of course are the level designs that force you to follow a relatively linear and restricted path to said anti-tank weapons. This is completely ridiculous.

7. Poor level designs. Too many places you cannot go or step when you should be able to. Places you cannot jump over or crawl under where you should. Only in EIB do you get to even blow holes in the hedges with the TNT that all paratroops carried as part of their standard pack during that theater of operations, and then only in key places and one whole scenario.

8. Situational awareness mode. Give me a break. This is supposed to substitute for the advance study done by the troops? It's not even as good as a raw topo map dump. You are chained to camera angles around key points and there are no indications of any significant type for changes in elevation and quite often the terrain features are faded out due to the choices made for the camera angle.

9. Another limiting factor is that you cannot issue movement commands to a location you know is there but are not lined up on directly yourself and you had better be on the side away from the enemy when you issue the order. This could have been easily fixed by using some option to issue commands while in situational mode, especially if that were better done.

10. Lastly the much hyped authentic tactics. Authentic, sure, in a very introductory and watered down way, severely limited in permutations, applications and variations due to all the other limitations of the game.

By the way, I am both a veteran and an experienced programmer and I am highly disappointed with this game on both counts.

If this is the latest in realism then it shows what a sorry state the gaming industry really is in. Of course I still haven't seen AI in a commercial game yet that matched up to what I saw undergrad programmers doing in college during the 80s. We deserve better and it's not that hard to do. It's time we stopped allowing these companies to hype this stuff up like it is so great when it's all fluff like pretty pictures and sound.

Oh, one PS. The AI cheats. You can observe how the enemy becomes magically aware of things completely out of the blue, such as someone being behind them, not moving or firing, and behind cover. This is inexcusable.

Great game. The research gone into this game to get as authentic as possible was extensive. It starts to feel like you're really on a WWII battlefield when you're hunched behind a barricade ducking shots from the Germans. I played the first Medal of Honor when it first came out, and I remember that was really the first WWII-based first person shooter and it got a lot of respect. I thought it was OKAY, but Brothers In Arms is much more authentic and just a better game. This is a WWII first person shooter, but unlike Medal of Honor, this has some squad-based influences from games like Ghost Recon, SOCOM: Navy Seals, and Counter Strike. What I liked most about this game is how you can issue commands to your squads, to use suppressing fire, to charge, to go behind cover or to move to certain positions. And the game puts a lot of emphasis on flanking enemies -- simply suppress them with one squad, and flank with the other and hit the enemy from the sides or from behind. This is just a great game. I gave it 4 stars because the graphics are good, but not spectacular. The dialogue amongst the troops and the main character's narration between levels are also great. If you're a fan of WWII first person shooters, then this is a must-have.

Graphics - 8/10
Controls - 9/10
Sound - 9/10
Overall - 9/10