There's an article over at [b]Boomtown[/b] offering some insights on the forthcoming sequel. If you're interested in knowing how much it will differ/improve from/upon the original game, this is a good one to read! Here's a snip: [quote]The reason we say this is not quite a sequel is simple: it isn’t. Brothers In Arms may have provided jaded shooter fans with a stunning alternative, but the game certainly left itself open for repair come sequel. For starters, it lacked the inclusion of fully functioning physics. Earned in Blood lacks those too. Brothers in Arms wasn’t as diverse as it could have been either. In fact, sometimes it was rigidly linear and the ordering and flanking of your squad and enemies became a tad repetitive by the end. Earned in Blood looks to be more of the same. Except in one area - its setting. The first title made full use of the lush green environments of the countryside. You fought on roads, you fought in fields, farms, barns and ditches. There was rarely much time spent in the urban environment save for the final few missions. Earned in Blood is set almost entirely in urban environments.[/quote] ---- Link: [url="http://pc.boomtown.net/en_uk/articles/art.view.php?id=9181"]Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood[/url]