Mixed or average reviews - based on 26 Critics What's this?

User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 403 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Summary: EALA is crafting this single-player component of this modern-day, Afghanistan-set reboot of the classic shooter series; DICE is working on the multiplayer.
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 16 out of 26
  2. Negative: 1 out of 26
  1. Medal of Honor is more than just a reboot of a storied franchise. It takes the FPS genre to a whole new level.
  2. Medal of Honor is a great title, a realistic and epic take on the war in Aghanistan, but is too short, just 5 hours for an incredible experience, that will push you in a breathtaking journey in most dangerous valleys of A-Stan. It also has an interesting hardcore single player mode, and a well made multiplayer, but it's not as good as the ones in Bad Company and Modern Warfare.
  3. Paying tribute to our brave men and women in uniform-who often go through situations that are unimaginable to all of us sitting at home with controllers in our hands-is a great thing. The step that EA has taken towards establishing a precedent for exploring topical subject matter in a video game may be a small one, but it's still important. But almost everything else about Medal of Honor, while enjoyable, makes it hard to shake the feeling of playing just another military shooter.
  4. The strain of realism that should run through this title is simply too weak to provide a point of leverage, and whilst the game is certainly admirable in many respects, it simply doesn't offer the kind of experience once associated with the franchise.
  5. 70
    Good news: This is not Call of Duty. Bad news: This is not Call of Duty. Interesting environs and fast paced action can't hide more than a few story holes and the overall stupidity of opponents. [Issue#197]
  6. The single player campaign is a lot of fun with some great moments sprinkled in. It's really short though and some bugs crept into the product that made it a little annoying. MP Summary: Multiplayer looks good from what we've seen and could challenge Modern Warfare 2's throne if supported by EA and DICE over the long haul.
  7. Dec 25, 2010
    Medal of Honor is just following the crowd, with no true identity to call its own. [Issue#185, p.70]

See all 26 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 77 out of 147
  2. Negative: 50 out of 147
  1. Oct 13, 2010
    Not a CoD beater but definitely close. This game is about realism, not arcade shooting. The SP is action-packed but short, with only 5 hrs of gameplay. You are in the War in Afghanistan, fighting the Taliban forces in actual operations that took place in 2001-2005. You are a Tier 1 Operator, a unique brand of soldiers who are sent into the most intense action. You'll go from stealthy sniping missions, to full out warfare and cave raids. The game delivers its best in its multiplayer. In this MP, you actually require a bit of skill to do well. You can't just run in and start shooting everything like in CoD. You'll be dead soon and will hate the game for it. The MP runs of an exp-based system where earning points awards you with new upgrades to your weapon such as sights and barrels and types of ammunition. There are a few maps out right now, but more will be out soon. Graphics and visuals can go from dull and average to absolutely stunning and attractive, depending on the mission. Audio is amazing. Voice acting is spot on, and music delivers a punch. Overall, this is a successful solid reboot of the series. If you need a break from the arcade style of recent first-person shooters, then go out and get yourself a copy of Medal of Honor (2010) for a more realistic take on gaming. Expand
  2. Dec 14, 2010
    Look, im not some lowlife comparing every game to CoD. But it is obvious they tried to mimic some CoD traits. Well in singleplayer anyway, and they did it with great success. The campaign is magnificent, but shows obvious signs of not being "polished" but still even i love the Campaign.

    The multiplayer was a huge mess up, while its still pretty fun it is nothing like the singleplayer. you may have heard reviews about it being two games.
    They werent kidding.
    Graphics - Different
    Reloads - Different
    Animations - Different
    Sound effects - Different

    Even they way people move is different, the only trait multiplayer and singleplayer share is that its an FPS.
    Ranking on multiplayer is fairly average, you dont have an overall level. Instead you have 3 classes which can rank up to 15 levels, which essentially 45 levels.
    Very disapointing.
    But despite the many errors i still got many hours of fun fromthis game, its easily worth the $98 retail, i just hope that danger close do the multiplayer, should there be a sequel. Not Dice
  3. May 12, 2011
    While the single-player isn't very good, the multiplayer is competitive and fast paced. Overall however, I have trouble recommending this game when the Call of Duty series has much better single player campaigns and Battlefield has a far superior multiplayer. Medal of Honor is just a compromise in both respects, with a largely uninteresting single-player campaign and a repetitive multiplayer. Hopefully the second game will improve upon the single-player, because it definitely has potential. Expand
  4. Nov 14, 2013
    Graphics: The graphics aren’t the best I’ve seen, but they still look pretty damn good. 9.
    Sound: Nice soundtrack, good voice acting, the
    games guns sounds are okay not the best, and there’s minor grenade explosions, and other destruction sounds that aren’t realistic. 8.5.
    Gameplay: The game is an fps that may seem like a watered down version of Call of Duty, but it can actually hold its own ground. There’s a great mix up of gameplay from linear shoot em up type missions, to stealth missions, vehicle driving, and on rails helicopter battles. Some guns feel unrealistic, while some are good. It has the typical controls you’d expect from an FPS, it isn’t the greatest fps, but it is still worth a playthrough (sp). The multiplayer is fun but this is where the watered down version kicks in. Supposedly it’s done by DICE yet it doesn’t feel as good as their battlefield series. There aren’t any destructible environments, and it feels like an old days FPS shooter. It is still fun, but there are so many other options out that one may look the other way for Medal of Honor. 8.
    Story: The story is okay, it’s based on real life undercover military that are hidden away watching Taliban activity. You’ll find yourself slowly boring away, but some characters can be memorable but they are easily forgotten. The game tries to create sad moments but never really impacts the player. A lesson may need to be learned from Call of Duty when it comes to impact/controversy. 6.5.
    Lasting Appeal: The games singleplayer is very short, you can beat it in 2 sittings if you went all out. There is multiplayer but it isn’t the best. I can recommend this game but there are better options out there. 7.
    Overall Score: 7.8 out of 10.
  5. Oct 15, 2010
    The solo campaign has bugs that prevent progress through the game unless the player is canny enough to search the web for a work-around. The DICE multiplayer part of the game is mediocre due to the lack of vehicles, maps, destructible structures, and having to play in small environments that are confined by invisible walls. What were they thinking? If I had known about the poor QA and design decisions going into this title I would have held on to my money. The most professional element of this game was the advertising campaign that convinced so many of us that it was worth buying. Expand
  6. May 16, 2013
    This game is the definition of mediocrity. If the devs really wanted to honor the troops so much, they really should have tried harder on this game, because all I see is lazy work.

    It's just ridiculous little things like stationary models clipping through other objects. Example: a corpse was in a chair and its hands were clipping through the back of the chair. Plus, there are a ton of glitches, some of which made me reset my checkpoint because the game stopped working. I don't understand how such a short, linear game can be so unpolished and buggy. It just shows so much laziness.

    One of my biggest pet peeves is invisible walls, and they are everywhere in this game. I don't get why giving the player a little freedom scares these devs. If they wanted to make a movie they should have just done that instead of forcing me into their carefully scripted, planned out sequences. Games are about choice.

    I won't complain about the length, though, because any longer and this game would have overstayed its welcome. I'm glad it was short so I didn't have to trudge through any more of it.
  7. Aug 19, 2013
    Horrible multiplayer. Bad maps, bad guns, bad graphics, bad animations, bad hit registration, bad everything. Absolute junk. Bad, bad, bad, bad, 150 char. Expand

See all 147 User Reviews