I watched my friend play a bit of Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway, and the atmosphere, storytelling, and acting, so far, is some of the best I've seen in a game, ever. Bits of it reminded me of A Bridge Too Far (which seems appropriate, since both deal with Operation Market Garden). Gameplay seemed very fun, too.
However, the story seems like I'm coming into it in the middle, without having seen the beginning. Have any of you played both, and if so, do I need to play the first two games to know exactly what the hell's going on with that engraved gun and the characters they mention, or do they go into detail about these facts later on? By the way, it would be awesome to see the first two Brothers in Arms games here, since Ubisoft added a few titles here and they could probably charge $9.99 for those two games each.

I think it helps to have played the previous ones, since it's the same characters.

I really want the series to show up here on gog, played the demo of the original game and it seemed pretty interesting.

you're probably gonna have to wait a few years...

Yeah, you really should play the first two first.
Be warned though... if you attempt to play the first two on the highest difficulty it is nearly impossible to win and even on easy it still can be a challenge at times. Also the feel of the first two are very different from Hell's Highway, the guns are much more realistic and the iron sights are very shaky.
Though, I prefer my FPS tactical and difficult.

The only Brothers in Arms game I played was D-Day for the PSP... not the best impression I had.

Yeah... probably not the best way to start off the series...
Trust me, the other ones are much better especially if you appreciate realism and historical authenticity.

Well the story structure in hells highway is largely centred around flashbacks, you're not actually playing "now" until 2/3 through the game.
The story of the first 2 is probably a good addition but isn't essential, certainly helps you get more out of the story, notably the bit involving Private Leggett. You could probably get much the same effect going backwards through the story
The first 2 had a very annoying tendency to force you to be tactical. Now thats something I hardly ever complain about but it was basically impossible to snipe guys who were in cover even when you were close and managed to place the ironsights right over the bit of their helmet poking up over the top. Basically the best you could do is suppress them and then order your teams to flank and attack (or order them to suppress and you flank).
I've come to think of Hells Highway as a tactical shooter and Road To Hill 30 & Earned In Blood as being first person RTS

Yeah, I noticed that. I watch my friend play through the first few missions, and the way it pulls a CoD 4 at the beginning is really jarring. At the same time, though, I feel like it would've impacted me more if I had played the other games in the series.

So its like an old style Full Spectrum Warrior?? ;-)
I enjoyed that game too...

Private Leggett looked a bit like Harry Potter to me.

He does have that nerdy weedy guy kind of look now that you mention it
It's not the same style of gameplay exactly but I reckon if you like Full Spectrum Warrior than you'll probably like BIA.
On a side note, off to vote for FSW on the wishlist

Psst buddy, FSW is free from the publishers. Why on Earth Steam charges $9.99 for it is beyond me.
Oh, and ordered Road to Hill 30 and Earned in Blood on Amazon, wanting to play what is billed as the most realistic and tactical WW2 shooter since... Wolfenstein 3D.

'cause not everyone is a fan of advertisments, not to mention the darn game insists I don't have internet connection, therefore I can't run it