Community Review: Medal of Honor

Yes, I could blather on and on about the relative merits of Medal of Honor, but do you know what might work better? If you blathered on about the relative merits of Medal of Honor.

The community review is your chance to give your take on the latest big releases. This time round it's the turn of EA's franchise reboot of Medal of Honor.

Medal of Honor does border on plagiarism at times - it does directly lift the pacing and shooting mechanics from the Modern Warfare series - but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Utilising tried and tested mechanics that work makes Medal of Honor fun to play, and the solid pacing drives you throughout the shortish campaign at a decent trajectory.

But we can't help but feel a little short-changed. Medal of Honor, being based on a real war that's still taking place, was a real opportunity for gaming to create something a little more substantial than gun porn. In Medal of Honor the setting and the circumstances are nothing more than a flimsy excuse for gamers to shoot at everything that moves, and we wanted EA to truly create a game that delved into a little more deeply into the war experience.

Movies have their Green Zones, their Apocalypse Nows - we only have a succession of Rambo 3s, and I can't help but feel a little disappointed about that.

Anyway, enough about me - what did you guys think?


Comments

    Short and sweet, and is somewhere between MW2 & BC2.
    4 hour solid Single Player campaign, feels like a war movie where you play as some of the soldiers.
    MP is fun too, though feels a bit limited. Some maps, some modes that we've seen before with some satisfying weapons that really kick ass when you get to around level 8.

    I hear a DLC will be out soon..

    Have some hackers there already, aimbotters mostly - never seen an admin so just have to drop servers.

    3.5/5

    I love the game, Especially the online. While it could be considered baron in comparison with cod, the lack of extras actually makes it more fun. There are no bullshit deaths from javelins or throwing knives, and the maps are all excellent.

    The singleplayer feels like a different game. It plays well and is exciting the whole way through but when you switch between singleplayer and multiplayer it takes a little bit of time to adjust. While the campaign is shorter than coda and arguably less epic it feels very real and at times draws out real emotion.

    MOH is now my go to shooter. It has enough of it's own to feel different from cod, and it only takes the best things from it. Most importantly it is damn fun to play. Get into it!

    It's ok, but I don't really like the fact that they got dice to make the multiplayer. It only has 8 mp maps, so there's not a lot of variety. The single player was good but suffered from it's short length and lack of a strong story. It seems to have this thinly veiled, don't know what the term is maybe one-up-manship, by having brief things like sniping and flying helicopter that don't really add to the story. I'd say it's worth getting cheap, renting it or bumming it off a friend for a few days

      I actually thought the story was great and actually made a lot of sense compared to the forgettable ones in Bad Company 2 and Modern Warfare 2..
      I completed it on medium difficulty too so it made more of an impact, I guess.

      @Justo - I also think that these point(kill)-streaks and the lack of "bullshit kills" are beneficial to the multiplayer gameplay.

        It's not about how much sense the story makes its about how compelling it it,the depth that it has and the character development. And it should most certainly not be how good the story was compared to this or that.

    Another question: do you think Medal of Honor, Bad Company 2 and Modern Warfare 2 - is that now the new 'average' for an FPS campaign?

    I agree 100% with this reviewer. When this game first booted
    up I thought "Can u say C.O.D." From there it didn't get better. C.O.D. did ! The maps are small and leave little room for alternate routes or choices. Nothing to explore. I'm a decent player,nothing special. I play these games on hard level. I can only say this is the softest hard level I have ever played. Not good ! Throw in the game is short and the end of game credits are long,and the thing cost $60 bucks,well u get the picture ! I'm 50+ yrs old. I have every M.O.H and C.O.D. loved them all. This is very disappointing.

    To be honest I was totally disappointed with Medal of Honor. The minimum I was hoping for was something to get me through until Black Ops, but it couldn't even accomplish that.

    Was there even a plot? Like Mark said, there was a real opportunity to make the game more meaningful, but it fell well short of that. The plot just felt like 'get from point A to point B and kill everyone in between.'

    From what I've seen, the multiplayer community for this is tiny. It obviously isn't drawing people away from Modern Warfare 2, with more people still playing single modes in MW2 than playing MoH overall.

    Oh well. Fallout New Vegas is in two days and Fable 3 is a week away so there's plenty of things to move on to.

    A lot of people will not notice this, but the game has been built down to the man killed in accounts of what happened in the early days of the war.
    The enemy numbers may have been exaggerated, but the events were not

    Multiplayer was a let down as it didn't feel true and original to the Medal of Honor gameplay [too much BF2 there], and the active hacks at launch have been annoying to community members.

    MP aside, SP shines like an illumination flare. Sound effects were top and highly detail to the ricochets and reverberations.

    A game I look forward to playing more of or seeing the community modding.

    I should not after reading other reviews;
    This is not a fictional story, this is the actual events of the initial stages of the war.
    People have the perception that it is meant to be fictional CoD style but it is not, this was the war, the Ranger Chinook getting shot down was accurate to the door gunner getting shot and a ranger taking over.
    Why does a storyline need to be fleshed out further than reality? Am I saying this game is what it is like? No, it is tailored to be entertaining for those who play the game, but the devs gave you a history lesson of Afghanistan and I thought it was fudging excellent.

      Yeh I remember reading the memoirs of the bearded warrior and I really liked the bit where he went off a 20 meter cliff on a quad bike..

    I really liked Medal of Honor. I'm a bit of a military buff and love authentic shooters. Sound design is worth the purchase alone. It's cross between Bad Company 2 and Modern Warfare 2, it takes some from both. Don't buy it if you want to upgrade every 10 kills, buy it if you want an authentic single player and multiplayer experience. I find COD is like a hollywood blockbuster, larger then life story, Medal of honor is down to earth, authentic, gritty and I'm really enjoying it.

    I bought this game of MOH for my husband for 60 bucks and I think that was the worst way I could have spent that 60 bucks. In less then 8 hours he beat the game. Come on I have seen him play games that cost 10 bucks that took longer and were more interesting to play then this game. He has all the MOH and COD games and this was the worst of them all. This game should have cost maybe 5 bucks if they were lucky. Very Disappointed!!

      Well that is easily one of the harshest and most unfair "reviews" i have ever read..

      I'm still yet to play this game, but if you've played one you've played them all. Even all the COD games i've played have had fairly short campaign modes.

      Calm down, take a deep breath and if the game is that horrible then it's easy to just return it to the store and swap it for something better.

    I'm eager to buy this game, but im just wondering how the multiplayer experience is on a console. Anyone play it on the 360? Any issues?

      Single player is good. Multiplayer feels like its been copied and pasted but its still got some differences to tell it out from Bad Co. 2. Besides from that I am waiting on how Battlefield 3 will be.

      its bad company 2, atleast in mp mode. the storymode was soild. rent it or borrow it,, not worth 60$...

    felt like cod in the mp beta but with a lot more camping and a worse engine didn't like it

    At first I felt let down with game - it has a very short and not terribly hard single player campaign. However, it has some of the best sound effects in a first person game - truly outstanding sound design. In fact, I think its weapons are some of the best in a FPS - not many and not many customisation options but they just feel and sound perfect - a lot of attention to detail. After playing thru the game for a second time and playing more on line I must say the game has truly grown on me. The story is low key but immersive and feels authentic not Hollywood. Multiplayer is also quite good, rewarding patience and tactics. The maps although less than there should have been at launch are quite good. If you are looking for something less frantic and more tactical yet still fun and engaging then I would give it a go!!

    Let's be honest, everything in this game is second rate and not deserving of the pricetag & an AAA title.

    Now I'm not going to criticise it for being tailored to consoles with nothing in mind for PC (despite playing it on the PC), since alot of major problems are prevalent in all versions. Problems indicating how unpolished it is from the list of bugs to the lazy graphical & textural designs.

    The campaign is one the shortest in FPS history even on the hardest difficulty. Being HEAVILY scripted coupled with the fact that the AI provides no challenge and are always where they're supposed to be makes it harder to praise this game.

    The multiplayer is also very short and could be mistaken as a mod of BFBC2. It is short in the terms that the matches are short, there's hardly any rewarding progression of the short progression of classes and you'll unlikely be playing it as much as other games. That is of course if you enjoy shooting guns that feel all the same as there's hardly any recoil and where you point is where the bullet is going to land no matter the range, camping spawn points or shooting at it from across the map because that's how bad those few maps get.

    In closing, since this is a mostly negative review (although truthful), it may overshadow positive points of the game. So, I'll throw this out there: "best corridor shooter" and pls give some feedback. Thanks.

    Might borrow it for a night for the single player and then go back to BC2. Considering there aren't many multi maps i wouldn't be suprised if EA will be adding more as free DLC's in an attempt to curve pre-owned sales of the game. Seems to be their MO nowadays.

    I guess i was confused by the difference in the SP and MP game mechanics.

    I havent run through the whole sp campaign or even delved into the MP to any true extent, played a round or 2 with some buddies.

    It was the disparity between player movements that got me confused. The SP dive for cover and hold ctrl for prone i thought would make a great mechanic for an MP firefight, is it not at all implemented in the MP? or is it a level of leetness i have yet to attain? I also understand that game engines are different but one would expect a certain continuity with controls.

    The graphics and overall visual experience are also Way sub par in single player. I just remember how amazingly cinematic and crafted the beginning of CODMW2 was. I suppose some might just call this game "gritty".

    Interesting to read the other comments, ill spend some more time with it for sure.

      The disparity in controls between MP and SP you are referring to is due to gameplay balancing. Whats fit for single player (going prone) isn't always suitable for MP - think of the advantage snipers would get if all they had to present by way of a target is a head and gun muzzle poking out behind a rock.

        Wouldn't you think that if a game was made from the ground up around a single set of control rules that balancing could be achieved by other means? It's just a rebrand of bfbc in mp, so they stuck to the balancing rules they knew. I miss the prone of battlefield 2, not to spam it but to give different cover options, and as such the sniper weapons weren't one hit kill weapons an requires some practice. Balance can be achieved by all sorts of methods, but it takes effort, and I'm sure you'll agree not much was spent on this mp experience.

    So in 2010 they tried to reboot the almost forgotten series of Medal of Honor, the way they they've tried to reboot the series is by doing what's already been done.

    The Unreal 3 Engine house's the singleplayer component, but even more bizarrely the multiplayer uses a whole different engine. DICE's Frostbite. Seemingly because Danger Close lack the experience to create the multiplayer themselves in the Unreal 3 Engine.

    Danger Close also seem to lack the experience or common sense to craft a decent singleplayer game. The first big problem that was burned into my retinas was the low Field of View. The FOV sits around 55 or 60 degrees, which completely blocks any room for your peripheral vision to work. It's kind of a shame, because a few aspects of the game look quite great.

    Nice visuals are about where the good bits of the game stop. The rest of the game is marred by poor AI, Michael Bay-like story telling (E.g non-existent) and dialogue. What I mean by the last one is, the game just loves to steal control from you even for the smallest scripted sequences. It's just really too much.

    One thing I did find enjoyable so far (judging by the rest of the review it's not much is it?) is the fact that the hardest difficulty is almost so easy you can walk around with a pistol for pretty much all of the levels.

    One last thing before I wrap up. I didn't touch the multiplayer as I had already experienced it in the first and second beta. It was horrible then, and probably was released horrible now. If I recall correctly there were some puzzling decisions. Like the lack of recoil or bullet drop. I remember sniping with the pistol on many occasions, getting kills across the map. Basically the whole experience felt like an Alpha version of Bad Company 2.

    Anyway, I was going to write up more stuff that I hated about this title. But you get the point, the game stinks. It's got lazy developing all over it and the PC version is a straight up console-port.

    EA you tried to revive the very franchise you helped kill (2007's Medal of Honor: Airbourne.), you have tried and failed. It's time to admit defeat and let the series die.

      Forgive the grammar and punctuation mistakes, I'm too tired and forgot to proof-read :\

    i'm intrigued by this game, but when people say a game is not worth 60 bucks it pisses me off, here in AUS new releases range from 90 to 110 bucks, try justifying that 4 any game,US and AUS $ is the same nearly!!!

    I'm really disappointed with this game. I don't care how much supposed 'authentic' dialogue they throw in, it makes for a boring video game. I saw a review from some ex Airforce guy who used his review as an opportunity to throw in as much lingo as he could. What a douchebag. In its defence, I don't think shooters need to have overly melodramatic plots. Even Call of Duty has some cheesy shit in it for the sake of drama. Mind you this game does have its fair share of cliche cutscenes.

    I've got more respect for a game with a mundane story that doesn't ham it up over a cheesefest like the Metal Gear series. You ever get that embarrassed feeling when you're playing a game and a non-gamer is in the room? It's because game story writers won't grow up. I don't necessarily think that games will follow the same history as film, but look at the early movies. Everything was overracted. Nowadays, things are more understated (unless you're Michael Bay of course). But nowadays videogamers praise a game's story because it's so blatant and rammed down your throat. Then they pan a story for being "unremarkable". Unless you advertise it, dipshit reviewers won't notice it.

    But back onto this game. The gameplay is boring. Of course the real life experience of getting shot at is hairy and most armchair jockeys wouldn't really want a part of that. What we enjoy is enough movie realism to make the experience feel fun, rather than the boring realities. This game is plain not fun.

    All of the "Tier one/long beard" advertising made me sick in the guts. It's a bunch of embarrassing name-dropping garbage to try and get sales. What I like as a gamer is a game that plays like that movie "Gamer". It's unrealistic, but has enough visually cool shit and awesome sound to feel fun. But something without a Japanese cartoon story to make me puke. That's what I want. I also don't want to sit around virtually for several days pulling ticks out of my crack, cleaning weapons and eating shitty rations with nothing going on.

    I found the game to be just pure cliche. Several other reviews have summed it up perfectly as 'Taliban whack-a-mole'. You're effectively going from shooting gallery to shooting gallery with zero originality, pure cliche dialogue and story, and well - I was completely underwhelmed.

    There also seemed to be an excessive number of door breachings - all of which had none of the excitement of those seen in COD4 - which were done infinitely better, and in moderation.

    Basically to sum it up, it felt like they wanted to recreate the winning COD formula (love it or hate it, COD has sold a gazillion copies) - the end result being an uninspired piece of mediocrity.

    I feel that if they focused on creating a game, rather than trying to be the next COD, it may have been an amazing game...like the original WW2 Medal of Honour was. I have fond memories of the original game. The new one has already been forgotten.

    In accordance to a number of other reviews here I found the game very lacking. I'm not even sure if anything was changed from the beta to the release.

    Single Player:
    As authentic as it may be I never felt like I was there. The entirely scripted cut-scenes left me without control over my character, removing me emotionally from the game. By far the most frustrating element of the SP is the fact that it is too easy and too short. I finished on Hard in just over 3 hours, I only died a few times. MW2 on veteran is at least challenging.

    Multi-Player:
    MW2 and BFBC2 had a baby called MoH. As a whole though the game is lacking. The leveling system is far too quick to max out your weapon. No prone...wtf!? Where's your argument for authenticity now, what kind of battle takes place without people laying prone? The levels are like corridors essentially made for snipers to camp. There is a lack of progression, I have most of the awards in the game and I haven't even played for 24hours yet... what interest do I have in continuing to play once I have them? Furthermore, the medals are given once, it would make more sense to use the same system that BF2 used (bronze, silver, gold levels). Then of course there are frequent dropouts and the people using hacks.

    The only good thing:
    The audio. Amazing. Honestly the best part of the game.

    Summary:
    Watch it on youtube in HD and you've played the game since the only worthwhile part of the game is the audio. The SP was short and easy. The MP is unbalanced, has a lack of progression, and has a very limited set of movements for your character. For $60 it's simply not worth it (unless EA decide to fix some things).

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now