Well Brothers in Arms is a good game with solid gameplay, but it's no masterpiece. Some pros are: nice slow motion headshots, grenade blasts, and tank rounds. This will really make you cringe. You see the Germans arms and legs ripped from their body. Did I mention it's gory? Now some cons: graphics are bland with not much color, the characters lips don't match up when they talk, if you haven't played the first two games you might not understand what they are talking about in the cutsceans, at times the game can get boring, and the multiplayer just sucks. All in all though this game is probably a rental for you, unless you really like Brothers in Arms games.
If you like more of a chess-move strategy FPS, then this is pretty good. It is all about moving your teams, flanking, and lots of sniping. Not a good button smashing, run into the middle, guns blazing type of game. I'd actually rate it higher if it didn't have horrible, long cut-scenes. What is with these super long cut scenes these days? My take is that it is the sign of bad stories and a sad cover-up for programmers to make a game work when in reality it is their failing at linking one scene to the other. If video game programmers were good at making movies, then they would play them at the multiplex. They aren't. Who wants to see stupid dialog, cliché story lines, and bad camera angles in a passive state? This is a video game. I really wish that they would spend more time on weaving the story into the game play and not falling back on cut scenes. It is sad. Glad I got this on GameFly and didn't buy it. That being said, I did dig the strategy-based fighting.