Having already purchased 'Road to Hill 30' I already had a certain idea what this game would be like. I thought it was be from where the first game stepped off but slightly 'polished' with the strange PS2 'death-glitch' removed.
I was half right. 'Earned in Blood' definitely improves gameplay-wise from the first in the series with the WWII realism perfectly maintained and even made to feel better, what with the enemy AI actually trying to outwit most of the time. The graphics too are okay, better than the original but that's as far as it goes.
The Cons of the game? Provided you care about what's going on between the action of the gameplay, it seems to be the same plot line as 'Road to Hill 30', with the exception of the last few missions, only this time told from a sub-character from the first game. Does it matter? Not really. But the game more or less has the same sort of missions as 'Road to Hill 30' and the level layouts are hardly different to the original as well.
Okay, certainly not as grand or great as most War first-person-shooters, but still in the top 10 if there was one. 'Earned in Blood' may not live up the greatness of its predecessor but it still has its own podium to stand on.
Think of it like 'Prince of Persia 1 and 2'.'Sands of Time' was top of its 'game' and in some way was similar to 'Road to Hill 30' because it was the first true WWII shooter out there. Then after 'Sands of Time' came 'Warrior Within' which was a bit of a letdown because it had none of the 'zaz' of the original. It was a good game in its own right but it still different, maybe darker, which made it feel less than fantastic to the buyer. The same goes for 'Earned in Blood'.
Had it not been one in a series, then it would definitely be a top game. Because the first was so brilliant and new, the second had a lot to aspire and be like as many other sequels have to face when they reach the shelves.
