Medal of Honor Pacific Assault PC
  • Publisher: EA Games
  • Release Date: Nov 4, 2004
User Score
7.3 out of 10

Mixed or average reviews- based on 64 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 48 out of 64
  2. Mixed: 5 out of 64
  3. Negative: 11 out of 64

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. TomJ.
    May 2, 2005
    4
    The load times are totally obscene. When I can finish a beer, get another AND use the restroom between getting killed in SINGLE PLAYER mode I think a redesign of how the levels get loaded needs to happen. I've got a gig of ram and a 2 gig machine. This is rediculous. The game is well designed and totally fun, but when I only have a few hours after the child goes to bed and before I do, mindless yahoo.com games that load instantly are becoming more appealing. I've been a MOH fan since the first installment. Hopefully the NEXT $40 that EAGAMES takes from me will be more worth it. Try again, guys.… Expand
  2. ChrisB.
    Jan 9, 2005
    4
    Shoddy. That's the best word to describe it. In a year that saw Half-Life 2, Doom 3, Far Cry, and the Call of Duty expansion, Pacific Assault unfortunately looks terribly bad in comparison. Frustrating gameplay, average graphics (with a disproportionately slow framerate), serious bugs with scripting (events not happening when they should for example, forcing you to reload and replay entire levels), and graphics bugs (destroyed trucks dissapearing leaving bodies 'magically' suspended in mid-air). I should also mention the LAUGHABLY bad physics. Come on EA - tacking on some shoddy physics only makes the game look worse when compared to Far Cry and Half-Life 2. It's a shame that EA seems intent on burying some of their finest franchises (Medal of Honor, NHL, Need for Speed) with a lack of effort. Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault is one of the worst shooters of the year, and certainly one of the biggest disappointments.… Expand
  3. JeroenR.
    Mar 3, 2005
    4
    Average game with some nice epic battles, but the game itself ins't worthy of the name Medal Of Honor. Uninspired multiplayer maps, uninteresting gameplay and amazingly dumb flight levels. Safe yourself from this all-around avarage game and buy a good game.
  4. Barishiman
    Nov 13, 2004
    3
    Again this is proof that EA can't raise the bar. MOH:PA brings a new graphic engine and it doesn't add up. The graphics are blurry during gameplay. I don't know if this was on purpose because of jungle conditions or just plain stupid. The AI is once again dumb. Your teammates do not respond to your commands nor do they help you out. Controls are slow or unresponsive. When firing at your enemies, you can waste over a clip because MOH:PA hitboxes are under rated and the damage system is pathetic. This game is a disgrace to the Medal of Honor francise. Only EA would support a worthless piece of junk.… Expand
  5. BillM.
    Nov 25, 2004
    2
    An average game from an average development team. It is obvious that EALA has neither the creative vision nor elementary skill level required to create an interesting and compelling FPS. A few
  6. MR.MA
    Nov 16, 2006
    2
    This is no game, its a movie, you think ur gonna play an exiting game after a screen load and ur ready to fire up then u end up watching a movie for minuts which u can't skip (maybe there is a tweak to it but i dunno) . i know its a ww2 moment recreater type game but the guys at EA got too creative about it and spend alot of effort on the gameplay music (which is very annoying) and forgot who they were making the game for.. i mean any one or most people who buy a FPS game or any other action game expect to blow up things and do things they can't do in real life,and u end up suffering from lack of freedom in this game , and whats with the personalities of the game characters they are very soft and nice soliders.... solders are supposed to be aggresive like the ones in farcry hehe.. and i dunt believe they were that nice in the real life ww2. EA some how seems to have made the game for the actual ww2 heros, i'm talking about the 80-90 year old men that fought these battles,, not teens or midage gamers, and its defenately not for kids (M rated). this will be the first and last game i buy from EA.. I even prefer Code name eagle than this,, if any one still remembers that game. the graphics isnt that bad.. but they are not that good either and saying that i mean i dunt understand why its has bad framerates when i set every thing of graphics in the config as low as possible, i have a very good comp and farcry and other games fly on it. i'm giving this game 2/10 just for the story telling and music of it and not game play.… Expand

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
80 out of 100

Generally favorable reviews - based on 43 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 34 out of 43
  2. Mixed: 9 out of 43
  3. Negative: 0 out of 43
  1. IGN
    78
    If there had been more variation on mission type, enemy AI hadn't cheated, and the feel of the weapons had been more solid, the gameplay could have lived up the awesome presentation value that the rest of the package promised.
    Read full review
  2. Adrenaline Vault
    90
    It's got frenzied action, a thoughtful storyline, and gameplay that will swallow you whole.
    Read full review
  3. AceGamez
    80
    Perhaps it's because after countless other games, particularly Call of Duty, those once magnificent scenes of senseless destruction no longer have the impact they once did. Scripted sequences have perhaps gone as far as they can go with these games.
See all critic reviews »