Top critical review
One person found this helpful
Very little new
on January 4, 2013
I enjoy playing Medal of Honor (2010) on the PS3, but am traditionally a PC gamer; therefore, when I saw this game on a Lightning Deal for $29.99, it wasn't a hard choice to purchase this franchise follow-up for the PC. Having played it for around 30 hours now, I feel like I can rate the product fairly.
I see the 2 main competitors to this game as the Call of Duty and Battlefield franchises, but it never really lives up to either of them. Essentially, the game feels like a rehash of the 2010 iteration, but with smaller maps and some new gear. Call of Duty pulls off the rushing-around-like-a-headless-chicken with finesse, while Battlefield has multi-spectrum warfare figured out with a balanced game style that allows an individual to enjoy, and be rewarded for, each type of play style. Call of Duty's maps are small but well-balanced, with Battlefield's maps being trimmed in size dependent on what game type is being played; meanwhile, MoHW has very small maps that become linear when opened up. This doesn't allow for a varied play style and that results in nearly every round in multiplayer feeling like déjà vu.
So after 30 hours I am just not into it anymore and have already gone back to Medal of Honor (2010), as it managed to pull off the Afghanistan maps very well, with some great firefights; good, balanced sniping; and, an overall feeling of reward when you finish playing, unlike this latest iteration.
So unfortunately, unless you're a MoH diehard, I'd recommend saving your money for another game.