Customer Reviews

Medal of Honor

5 star:		(87)
4 star:		(90)
3 star:		(90)
2 star:		(75)
1 star:		(59)

 

 

To be fair I'm going to split this review into two parts. Single Player and Multi Player. Since they both run on different engines, its only fair to separate the two as far as quality and game-play goes.

*Single Player*

Game Play:
I always play my games on the hardest difficulty because I want to be challenged and get my $49-59 worth. Single player on hard is so easy, I think even the most novice player could beat it with no sweat. I beat the game in what was literally a solid 2.5-3 hours and died about 5 times. I'm no FPS guru, but for comparison it took me about 10-15 hours to beat MW2 and Reach on their hardest difficulty. I'm not a Halo or MW2 fanboy and I hate to make the comparison, but those two games on their highest difficulty have made me seriously consider throwing my XBox out the window (some of you know what I'm talking about). That's the level of difficulty I expect from any "big name" FPS. 3 hours of game play is just insulting. It partially has to do with the A.I. The only time you'll have trouble is when you don't see and enemy. Other than that, the controls are great and familiar. MOH does have this feature called "Look/Lean" where you can poke your head out from behind a corner or object and lay down some suppression fire. Its interesting, but I don't see many people using that feature.

Story:
This game doesn't have a story line, it has a story circle. You start the game with no clear intention of your overall objective. All you know is that you're deep in Afghanistan looking for "bad guys" and you're there to exterminate them all and that is the cycle of pretty much 95% of the game. Now I know it's based off a real war at real places and real events and the terrorist are the bad guys and the idea is to win, which is fine. But the overall idea of this game is just kill bad guys and keep killing them till there aren't any left. That's not a story, that's a theme. This game lacks a clear beginning, middle and end.

Graphics:
It looks real, like any other war game. The daylight scenes are very detailed with the tree lines and mountain ranges. I don't care to hear idiotic opinions about "the characters hand looked fuzzy for 2 seconds during a cut scene". That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I'll put it like this. When you shoot people, blood spews from their exit wounds. When a bullet hits someone in the head, pieces of their skull and brain matter spray the wall behind them. I think that's graphic enough.

Sound:
Amazing. That is one of the few things this game really has going for it. The soundtrack is pretty good to. The music from the end still gives me goosebumps.

Comments:
This game is seriously not done. The amount of glitches and A.I. foolishness is clearly noticeable at many times during the game. You'll see enemies "gumby" their way across the opposing battlefield as you desperately try to shoot them to no avail. The only other big flaw is the automation. The game works on the premise that you have to be in a particular spot to advance your teammates to the next part of the mission. It can get rather annoying running around the map looking for that particular "pressure point"

*Multi Player*

Game Play:
Online play is fun and exciting. There is definitely a noticeable difference in the game-play from multi to single player. It is a bit slow to get going because of the limited load-outs and weapon selections that you have when you first start playing. I suppose that after you start leveling up and gaining more options this would be alleviated. I personally feel that the game plays to slow during the matches, however it has its merits. Aside from the aforementioned "glitchyness", the multi-player is definitely a fresh alternative to the existing lineup.

Overall:
This game was probably the most disappointing FPS title that I've purchased. I don't say that to be cruel, but this game feels like it was really rushed and they could have spent more time developing it. It will have its time to shine, however it really can't stack up to its competition. I know people like to tout the notion that why does everything have to be compared with COD. Well its a FPS war game. It is only logical that you make a comparison of the two because not everyone has $60 to spend on every new game that comes out. I realize that some people have to seriously consider between the two choices. So I have to say, for the sake of clarity that this game is not as good as MW2 which was released a considerable amount of time before it.

*SYNOPSIS*
This game is not without its merits. It has many flaws, but most you can overlook. Medal of Honor does a good job of delivering a fresh multi-player layout and generally good online game play. However it has many crucial flaws that just don't give it enough merit to stay in full rotation against its existing competition and I suspect its soon to be competition.

3/5 - Buy this game used after a few weeks or rent it. If you're strapped for cash, I'd pass on this one. Or find a friend like me who buys all the big new titles and borrow it from him/her when they inevitably dish it for the next big title..

As a memeber of the Army serving currently in Afghanistan I do not see what the fuss is all about. I am not offended by this game at all. It is a game. It is entertaining and I play it when I have time here in Afghanistan. I wish the Taliban did fight back like they do on the game. We could ball these jokers up in the time it took to finish the game. lol Sadly enough all they do is emplace IEDs. As far as the game play is concerned it is tight and responsive. It helps that the controls are like Call of Duty. I like this game more than Call of Duty Black Ops but it is not as good as Call of Duty Modern Warfare 1 or 2. Just my opinion. I wish you could play versus split screen but that is not an option. Sucks... But, overall it is a great game. And it is not offensive to the Armed Forces. Stop putting words in my mouth while you sit on your butts back home doing nothing. I am fighting for freedom. The freedom to play what the hell I want to play...

The Call of Duty: Modern Warfare series is such a blockbuster that every FPS inevitably gets compared to it. That seems to be why this game is getting rather mediocre reviews; if you're looking for a MW2 look-alike, this ain't it. But I don't think it was meant to be either. The whole advertising campaign revolved around its uber-realism as it is loosely based on US SOF activities in Afghanistan immediately following 9/11. Everything from the lingo to the settings and gameplay aspire to give you the closest possible experience of being a "Tier One" operator (the top dawgs of the SOF community). On this front I think they did a decent job.

Single player: As I previously mentioned, the single player campaign is based on the initial invasion of Afghanistan in the weeks following 9/11. You play in various alternating roles including a Navy SEAL, a Ranger, and an Apache pilot. The campaign is pretty fun because it's a good combination of traditional FPS and newer roles like calling in Air Support, .50 cal long-range sniper, Apache pilot, etc... It is very realistic (to the point where you might not understand what they're saying if you're not familiar with Military-speak, e.g. 5 mikes instead of 5 minutes or RTB instead of return to base). As far as glitches I didn't really notice many. I did have one where my ATV got stuck in between two trees and that required a reset but it seemed like a freak accident and I wasn't too annoyed. I thought the graphics were pretty good, but I'm pretty forgiving of things like frame rate, graphics etc for what it's worth. As far as difficulty I don't think it was too easy. They have a Tier One mode that is unlocked for each level after it is completed. Everyone who said it was too easy probably didn't play on it. Although I do wish the campaign was a bit longer I don't think it was atrociously short; but you can easily finish it in a weekend.

Multiplayer: There are a few types of games: team deathmatch, team objective, sector control, and you get to choose between 3 classes of soldiers, each with their own weapons: Rifleman, Special Ops, Sniper. You level up each class separately by playing in that class. The points system is a basic 10 points for each kill plus bonus points for particular achievements (head shots, tier 1 kills, double kills, etc...) The gameplay is a little different than you'd expect based on the single player. For example the button layout is different and a lot of functionality from the single-player mode is disabled, such as the slide to cover or going prone. Yes you read that right: you can't go prone in multiplayer. But it's a good thing because otherwise snipers would be unstoppable as there is no kill cam. This game emphasizes shooting skill as the explosives (grenades, rockets) are very weak and unless someone is right next to the explosion they will survive. It's nice because it more or less eliminates noob tubing, but these limitations also give an advantage to snipers in some levels (particularly Diwagal Camp). It would be nice if they enabled the slide to help dodge snipers. There are also kill streak rewards, although they're not as elaborate, or fun, as those in COD:MW.

Overall I think it's a fun game and I don't regret buying it. I give it a solid 4 stars. Here are some of the things that can be improved upon and make it 5-star worthy: a longer single player campaign, ability to slide in multiplayer, more involved kill streak rewards, rebalancing teams that are obviously uneven, and making the Diwagal Camp less sniper-friendly (how about a tunnel to cross valley?).

My review applies primarily to multi-player, but I will say a quick word about the campaign.

The campaign, while buggy, was indeed fun to play, the game play was interesting and felt authentic all the way through. It feels genuine to be fighting an actual sworn enemy of America, not the Russians for once. The plot was realistic and the controls felt familiar. Audio was superb and the graphics were on par with its FPS competitors, offering some outstanding daytime landscapes of Afghanistan. My biggest criticisms for this mode would be it feels unfinished as it lacks a coherent storyline and is quite short, stopping abruptly. The AI could use improvement, as well.

As for multi-player however, I'm very unimpressed.

Just about everything that frustrates me about Bad Company 2 and Modern Warfare 2 returns in this game, with little of what makes those titles great. While the controls now offer basically the same layouts as Modern Warfare 2, which does make for easy cross-over, there is still no way to edit them to your personal liking. There is nothing worse than trying to make a quick turn while in the midst of a direct firefight with multiple tangos than accidentally stabbing wildly at the air.

Unlike the campaign mode, in multi-player there is no way to go prone or dive into cover. This is extremely frustrating for folks like me who like to hit the deck when under heavy fire. The destructible environment settings have been extremely scaled back, which is not a big deal to me, as many maps are mountainous anyway, however there is no "spotting" in this game which I definitely miss.
There is, as far as can tell, little to no communication between players in this game on XBL. At first I found the issue was likely related to my voice settings, but once fixed, I still heard nothing but crickets. I am a big fan of tactical communication and team work.

The maps seem rather unbalanced and to be designed with snipers in mind. Your team has an obvious advantage or disadvantage depending on which side of the map you start. Each map has a handful of strategic bottlenecks you need to cross, and they quickly get torn apart with sniper fire and as the kills rack up, eventually mortars and rockets. Maps appear quite similar and boundaries are poorly designed causing you to make multiple attempts at flanking your enemy only to realize there is an invisible wall where you are trying to go.

The spawn killing, rubber-banding and time-travel kills which occur in both BC2 and MW2 make their appearance here as well. The superior BC2 spawn system does not return in this game and the offered classes lack both the variety of MW2 and clearly defined roles of BC2.

I could go on, but you get the idea, in the end the final product feels like an early beta. It truly feels like playing a work in progress and that's not enough to succeed in this genre. It tries to do Bad Company + Modern Warfare, and in the end makes a mockery of each.

Overall, the campaign mode saves this game from being a total train wreck and makes it worthy of your time... but only as a rental. Play through it once, spend an additional few hours getting some multi-player achievements and you're done.

Don't waste $60 on this game.

Overall the game is fun, realistic, and engaging. I really appreciated not having to learn a new button sequence as they kept everything the same as COD. Therefore, there's really no adjustment period to get used to the controls. The first thing I usually do when I rent a game is play through the campaign on Normal. I enjoy playing on Hard difficulty, too, but usually save that for games I purchase. I was done with the Normal campaign in about 6 hours. It was certainly the shortest game I have played, and I found myself wishing it was longer.

However, similar to COD, they do a nice job mixing things up so that you have a chance to use many different guns and vehicles throughout the game. Combat is great - the first time I shotgunned a guy in the head...HOLY cow. Anyway, I think it's definitely one to put on your "rent list" and then see what you think. Luckily, I didn't purchase this game right away since COD was coming out in early Nov. I would have seriously wanted my $60 back.

As a single-player gamer, I normally love MOH games (Airborne is one of my all-time favorites) but this game is nothing at all like Airborne. It's actually too much like Call of Duty. Your player's movement is confined to a very limited area of play, and the game dictates where, when, and how to advance, as well as what weapons you will use to eliminate enemies. In other words, you have very little freedom of choice in this game. You cannot go about completing objectives on your own terms -- you MUST follow the script of the game to the letter in order to advance through missions. I find that to be no fun at all.

There are no weapons upgrades to earn, no med kits to find, no bonuses, no secrets to unlock or hidden places to discover, etc. There's literally nothing interesting to do in this game. All you can do is follow the yellow brick road and adhere to the tightly-regimented script. After playing the game for about two hours, I was so bored I quit and deleted the game from my console.

The graphics are phenomenal. The game is a lot like a movie. Unfortunately, MOH put so much into the cinematics and realism, they forgot to make the game fun for the gamer.

I'll preface this review by admitting that I don't enjoy First Person Shooters anymore; the video game world seems to be filled with Call of Duty knock-offs (and Call of Duty itself, actually) that are nothing but repetitive snorefests with lackluster stories, being sold entirely for the multiplayer. Frankly, I don't think multiplayer has any right to hold up a game: if your game doesn't have a solid leg to stand on with singleplayer, I'm not even going to touch it, which is why I haven't bought a Call of Duty since #2 (the last good one).

However, Medal of Honor exemplifies what shooters should be in this day and age; a captivating, compelling storyline, grounded heavily in reality but with just enough exaggerated fanfare to keep you playing through to the end. The single player campaign isn't excessively long, but it was long enough that without binging and playing perhaps two hours every couple of days, I ended up beating it just this morning (having bought it the day it came out). The military jargon and procedural tactics are authentic, as well as the weapons used and the missions of the Special Forces operators. Anybody that enjoys solid military procedural will love this game.

I haven't played multiplayer, and I don't particularly plan to - there's nothing fun to me about playing the same ten or twelve maps ad nauseum with a cluster of people that I don't know. I do, however, enjoy split-screen co-op and multiplayer -- which is where this game falls short. This is the only specific problem I had with the game, to be honest: no glitches for me, no problems with gameplay or the story. The one problem I had with the game is that there is absolutely no way to play the game with somebody in the same room as you. I don't even understand how you can market a FPS video game in this day and age with no split-screen. FPS games have had split-screen since Golden Eye on the N64.

Either way, if you're tired of the hackneyed, Hollywood crap storylines and campaigns of the CoD franchise, and don't need some repetitive, ridiculous multiplayer to get you through the day, buy the game. It's worth how much it costs for the several solid hours of single player goodness you'll get.

I heard from others this was a crappy game. Turns out i prefer it over cod black ops. hopefully if they make another one they fix more bugs before the release

Spent the day playing Medal of Honor, which I rented. While I found the game had its moments, I will not be buying it. More than a score, I think that one fact says it all.

First, I found the campaign was OK but quite easy. As many have said the AI is lackluster. But the graphics were great, sound was great, and the game was a nice mix of various activities. You ride ATV's, call in air strikes, snipe, have guns battles - the usual fair. All-in-all nice, but the overall challenge was nothing special. But I will complete the campaign before returning the game.

But where I really was left wanting was the multiplayer. It just seems the scale is off. Maps are somewhat large and chaotic. There are bottlenecks that people move through which encourages camping and sniping. You really don't engage the team as much as surprise them or get surprised by them - that is if you don't just get sniped first. Sniping and camping. That pretty much describes the multiplayer. Because if you don't, you just die a lot. Try to move around, check your corners, doesn't matter. Someone is sitting waiting for you - usually at a distance, and usually a sniper. I can't tell you how many times after I died the picture of sniper rifle came up.

While I understand the desire for realism, trying to translate the really world onto a television using a controller apparently means, let me just sit back here and wait while people try to move around. When they do, I will shoot them while never having to engage them. No challenge, no even playing field. Just me in my cozy little corner squeezing the trigger at an opponent who never saw me at all.

Sorry, but that is not fun, it is simply annoying. I hate the camping in Call of Duty, but the way this game is designed it puts COD to shame in this regard.

Creating a came from nothing is a challenge. Every once in a while someone really nails it. I believe we see that with Halo and COD. Each is a shooter but with a very different design philosophy. Call of Duty is quick - run and gun, while Halo allows for run and gun (SWAT) and variations like Slayer (armor and shields) to slow this down often creating a protracted "dance" between the two antagonists. But in the end you are face to face and engaged by both game types.

In the end it's not about graphics or sound - which in this day and age are givens if you are going to play with the big boys. It's about creating the right recipe that allows for an engaging, fun, and challenging experience. While Medal of Honor is certainly an honest effort, it simply does not get the recipe right.

Update: October 23rd - I've been playing essentially since the game came out. While I would at least like to see some game types without snipers, I really growing to like this game. At first I rented and thought that would be the end of it, but as the time neared to return the game I knew I was going to buy it and did. I thought the single player campaign was innovative and fun, although I did experience some glitches. But many games are like that initially - look at the reviews of the new Fallout.

The game has a really gritty and chaotic feel to it, much different from other FPS I've played. The way it is designed forces you to slow down and use cover or you will die - a lot. I even made a couple buds last night. I thought you couldn't talk in this game as I heard no one up to that point. All of a sudden I hear someone talk - finally!

I am hoping they do tone down the snipers (quite frankly they abused in the game - they unbalance it) , but other than that I am really enjoying this game. I hope EA will continue to support and fix whatever needs fixing and continue to add content (new maps, guns etc.).

And I would like to say I understand everyone's frustrations, but I for one am liking this game more and more as I play more. In fact, I like it better than COD. Don't get me wrong I like COD and have played it more than any other FPS, but this game has a much better feel to it - not so squeaking clean. And the maps, which may need tweaking as well based on some posts here, are an absolute mess - what a blast! Of course there is room for both games.

Medal of Honor is a first person shooter set in a middle eastern valley. Attempting to reboot the acclaimed series, MoH has shifted away from World War II and has found the most recent shooter gaming niche: modern warfare and conflicts. Doing so is no easy task, behemoths Infinity Ward and Dice certainly know how to extinguish competing developers. Fortunately publisher EA has Dice in there catalog and has paired the creators of this MoH iteration, Danger Close, to make for a dynamic duo.

During the summertime a beta was released for online gamers to partake and help locate bugs and performance issues. Doing so the mysterious vale was lifted and the gameplay has eased many anxious consumers, having been compared to Dice's previous work Bad Company 2, and something all its own. The Multiplayer should be looked at as the main dish of the game, as the campaign is meager in duration. That's not to say its bad in any way, perhaps even the campaign benefited from this.

Medal of Honors campaign quickly sets you up into one main location serving as the topographical back bone for the rest of your play time. This helps create coordination between the stories believability and time frame. To help break away from the monotonous feeling of being confined to one central location,
levels will often be livened up with particle effects, haze, snow, and time of day lighting changes. Still you may find yourself trudging through similar caves, sand blasted trails, and the occasional structural hide out. The beginning of said campaign is much more varied on location, where as the later half of the campaign is more aggressive in the tactical maneuvers you were taught a long the way. These include the quick ability to `laze' targets and set up air strikes, operate the guns of a helicopter, silently taking out foes and forceful use of night vision. You'll notice a pattern between the current soldier you are playing and their missions gameplay style.

The game can be a bit quirky, a good example would be the ability to see straight down a partially lit corridor, walking into it the game immerses you in total darkness. You could clearly see deep into the hallway earlier, but suddenly it wishes you to turn on your night vision. This isn't too bad and certainly illustrates a cinematic flair, similar cases on the other hand can hamper your productivity. Occasionally you'll be asked to fall back or the game wont proceed with scripted segments. Or sometimes you wont have the option to sprint ahead, in fact you'll be forced to walk so you can let your teams leader guide or to over hear story unfolding dialogue. All of this could simply be looked at like it was in the title Gears of War `game plays good, so I don't mind'. The worst case scenario though for a gameplay burden is the wretched bugged segments where you may not be able to use artillery at all and will receive a quick mission failed, and are forced into replaying the section. This has happened to me a lot, and is resolved usually by retrying said area. Other things people might take notice to is the linearity due to invisible walls, pathways appear vast but only gift you the passage of a specific trail. Also on the side note the enemy AI can be a bit dull, standing behind cover with a limb freely exposed for their demise. Team mates may even stand by an enemy as though the enemy has equipped a cloak and you're the only one that can see through this.

Aside from performance issues, the game can be really entertaining and upon completing campaign there is still much to do, that is if you have an internet connection and an online account set up. Modes like `Tier 1' let you run through the campaign on a brutal difficulty with a timer counting your every move down, practical head shots and eliminations manipulate the timer in your favor. Converting kills to points one can compare stats upon completion through leader boards.

Multiplayer offers a more jittery fast paced experience than campaign, at the cost of some of the cool features (firing modes, night vision, acquiring ammunition from a team mate). If any of this can be obtained I can't validate this, well if it's too far into the mp experience, as I've had immense difficulty getting an online match to run. One may like knowing, respawning on a map can be a terrible task, expect to be shot consecutively when spawned. I've been pinned behind a team sniper who is generating to much notice and in return get blown up within moments of respawning. When the server cooperates the game shines, fast loads between matches, leveling up individual classes based upon usage and style. If you are into sniping or charging the enemy there is a class for you. Though classes are condensed compared to Bad Company 2's roster, they are suitable for the smaller multiplayer objectives, and team death match variants. Gunplay is balanced in the sense no weapon feels too out of place. Snipers are fitted for closer range then BC2's open maps, but are instantly capable in the given hands of a good scout at range. Other titles have balancing issues with explosives, Medal of Honor underplays equipped explosives (grenades, launchers etc) by dampening splash damage and effectiveness of `spamming'.

Medal of Honor may not be the definitive modernized war fitted game, but it certainly shows promise. It makes for a great rental, or a great buy if you wish to sink a lot of time in leveling up an online class. That is if you can keep up with the frantic bullet chatter, and quick take downs. It's not a style I feel everyone's going to digest. It's not as 'action packed' or as accessible as Call of Duty, but its an engrossing shooter none the less. When the comparisons are dropped down the road, MoH may be recognized as to having one of the more realistic campaigns of its time.

Quick Edit: For those who may have perceived the above paragraph regaurding tier one as an online only mode, no worries it's available to offline gamers as well. I was simply suggesting the online leader boards for said mode add to the value.