User Score
6.4

Mixed or average reviews- based on 530 Ratings

User score distribution:
Buy On

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jan 25, 2014
    3
    5-hour campaign (on hardest first time through). Less than 200 players online servers. Hackers top charts. Don't waste your time or money this game was apparently dead years ago. There is nothing 'realism' about this game's multiplayer mode, since anyone who's perked+ranked up can run through a clip of AK47 shots to stab you in the face. Perks systems should be destroyed, stupid AAA5-hour campaign (on hardest first time through). Less than 200 players online servers. Hackers top charts. Don't waste your time or money this game was apparently dead years ago. There is nothing 'realism' about this game's multiplayer mode, since anyone who's perked+ranked up can run through a clip of AK47 shots to stab you in the face. Perks systems should be destroyed, stupid AAA titles. Get it for $3 or less, if you are really itching for a bland campaign. Expand
  2. May 16, 2013
    4
    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
    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.
    Expand
  3. Oct 14, 2010
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I got the steam version THE Good: Graphics are amazing. Sound in of weapons, explosion in the environment makes you feel right there. THE BAD:
    This game is high scripted and with my system I was getting ahead of the script and AI would should magically appear. I even ran up on a enemy AI before the script kick in. My squad AI Said I'll get him but he was way behind me so I knifed the enemy AI before he even moved. The UGLY:
    The games has severe bugs. Like the first mission you use the laser guide . the laser disappears if you go left and shows back up when you go right. (Trick lean right and laser shows up on the left targeting) on the quad cycle I had a bug where my Squad AI said to follow him and when I press F to get on it glitch and I was left hovering above the quad cycle and I can't move had to restart whole mission because if I restart level I begin hovering above the quad cycle. Spoiler alert I think. at the end where you go to rescue the seals the last door in the cave it. I kick the door and it jumps right to the end credits. now if that's the end then the game is short about 6 hours for me. for $59 it's a rip off. Even BF2BC2 single player lasted longer. Until Dice fixes the bugs I would hold off buying this game Steam PC version until a patch comes out.
    Expand
  4. Oct 13, 2010
    3
    During the whole game, you could feel, that MoH was just trying to reach the level of it's bigger brothers CoD and BBC.
    Sadly it failed and became just one of many mainstream-shooters.
  5. Oct 15, 2010
    4
    Not nearly as entertaining as its brethren MoD franchise and was almost astonished when 3-4 Hours later the credits where rolling up my screen. In the very short time it took to play through the excellent atmosphere and scenery I felt mighty let down at the sheer single player experience at the end. I feel almost robbed having bought it.

    Personally I'd wait for it on the budget line
    Not nearly as entertaining as its brethren MoD franchise and was almost astonished when 3-4 Hours later the credits where rolling up my screen. In the very short time it took to play through the excellent atmosphere and scenery I felt mighty let down at the sheer single player experience at the end. I feel almost robbed having bought it.

    Personally I'd wait for it on the budget line next time round.
    Expand
  6. Oct 12, 2010
    3
    i really, really tried to make this review useful, but i just couldn't. this is not a game that should have been released in 2010, this is not a game that should cost $60, this is not a game that portrays accurate weapons physics(despite all its claims), and this is NOT a game that can actually compete with the polished, professional efforts of the modern call of duty series games. for $30i really, really tried to make this review useful, but i just couldn't. this is not a game that should have been released in 2010, this is not a game that should cost $60, this is not a game that portrays accurate weapons physics(despite all its claims), and this is NOT a game that can actually compete with the polished, professional efforts of the modern call of duty series games. for $30 in 2008, this would have been amazing.
    Some bullet points: 3 hour single player with no apparent effort put into making the plot cohesive; textures that could easily predate COD4 in some areas (notably underground); environment glitches that prevent you from moving through the terribly scripted levels (delta force land warrior was better than this!); some of the worst AI in a modern shooter(how many baddies can i kill before they STOP manning the machine gun gun? oh wait, that wont happen until i jump OVER this rock that i just got stuck in)
    i do love the grenade explosion human body/ragdoll physics...amazingly similar to a circus cannon.
    in space.
    on a serious note, here is a more intelligible summary:
    MOH is to FPS what 'hungry hungry hippos' was to board games. loud, repetitive motions that nearly always net you the same result. An almost certain waste of $60.
    Expand
  7. Oct 13, 2010
    1
    This game is not worth the hype or the price tag, the multiplayer is mediocre, you would do better with BC2 or if your into the more arcade style fps, COD4 (not a fan of MW2), and the singleplayer is way too short. I would rate this a 4, if it wern't for trying to bring the user score down to reflect a more realistic score
  8. Oct 14, 2010
    0
    I agree the sensitivity to our service men and women in MoH is commendable, however, some consideration to the gamer is warranted as well. I finished the campaign in less than 4 hours on Hard. That is unacceptable. That includes playing a round on Tier 1 Mode and setting up my keys. I bought it for the SP. I am more than disappointed. The GamePlay is stifling; linear, predictable, you areI agree the sensitivity to our service men and women in MoH is commendable, however, some consideration to the gamer is warranted as well. I finished the campaign in less than 4 hours on Hard. That is unacceptable. That includes playing a round on Tier 1 Mode and setting up my keys. I bought it for the SP. I am more than disappointed. The GamePlay is stifling; linear, predictable, you are led like a dog on a leash, and there are more hordes of Taliban in MoH than zombies in L4D. At least L4D has an AI Director that prevents 40 zombies from coming out of the same hut you just walked past. If you are buying it for the MP, fine, but if you own BC2, keep your money. You are limited in your upgrades, you have only three classes, and the weapon selection is so minute compared to MW2 and BC2 is not worth money. If you are expecting a large cache of weapons, attachments, and other options, you will be disappointed. MP can be fun, but the maps are more of a corridor than a map. Enfilading fire is the only and best tactic for defense since the OpFor are forced to column into the next objective. There is little or no opportunity to flank in most of the MP modes. In summary if you like carnival shooting galleries with an American flag and "Remember the Troops" hanging on the wall then this the game will envoke the same amount of patriotism and give you the same satisfaction as shooting a BB gun at ducks. If you think you are going to have an one-of-kind, authentic, and compelling gaming experience, keep waiting and save your money. Expand
  9. Sep 16, 2014
    4
    A chore to play through and one of the worst games I've played. The story is forgettable, the characters boring and unlikeable and the gameplay is just mediocre at best. If you want a good military shooter get one of the older cods or one of the battlefields.
  10. Oct 18, 2014
    1
    one of the worst games i ever played **** this game **** EA stop ruining old and good games .
  11. Oct 15, 2010
    0
    This was the biggest disappointment I have ever had! The single player graphics are embarrassing, the knifing is just sad and the game play is horrible(NO RECOIL AT ALL). I would rather play COD MW2 with no dedicated Servers than ever even install this game again!! biggest waist of money. i would give this game 40%
  12. Oct 15, 2010
    4
    You know something is wrong when so many critic reviews give no negative reviews, and approx half of user reviews are positive. This game is unpolished, unfinished, unbalanced, and extremely disappointing. If you can look past the dated graphics, the rubbish multiplayer, the annoying show stopping bugs, then you might find something. Definitely not worth the price.
  13. Oct 20, 2010
    2
    Having both cod and BC2, this was a pointless purchase for me. Extremely linear gameplay in singleplayer, and nothing new at all in multiplayer. Singleplayer game engine feels very dated.
  14. Oct 24, 2010
    1
    I keep reading that MoH's ambition was to create a realistic FPS that aimed to immerse the gamer in a challenging and "realistic" simulation of modern combat. Are Dice writing another game alongside MoH? This is a dull, on rails, low brow corridor shooter that desperately wants to be CoD and sadly achieves that because the CoD series is exactly that. The trouble with these twoI keep reading that MoH's ambition was to create a realistic FPS that aimed to immerse the gamer in a challenging and "realistic" simulation of modern combat. Are Dice writing another game alongside MoH? This is a dull, on rails, low brow corridor shooter that desperately wants to be CoD and sadly achieves that because the CoD series is exactly that. The trouble with these two "benchmark" series is that on the PC at least, they have very little if any competition and are therefore not subject to the rigours FPS's on our platform used to experience. For me at least, MoH and CoD are simple, no brainer cash cows for greedy corporations that don't even try to encourage innovation.

    MoH starts badly and just never really gets your pulse racing. Its predictable and uttery faithful to the mainstream/arcade recipe of corridor shooters. Want a "realistic" sim of modern anti-terrorost warfare? Buy Arma2 Operation Arrowhead. Want to play CoD modern warfare AGAIN? Waste your money on MoH.
    Expand
  15. Oct 12, 2010
    3
    Medal of honor is a game that suffers from its desire to be "better" than its competition, despite copying nearly all of its game mechanics from these games. It's a game that is weaker than the sum of its parts, and DICE's effort in multiplayer seems half-assed compared to Battlefield: Bad Company 2. It also attempts to mimic Modern Warfare 2, but it doesn't implement the gameplayMedal of honor is a game that suffers from its desire to be "better" than its competition, despite copying nearly all of its game mechanics from these games. It's a game that is weaker than the sum of its parts, and DICE's effort in multiplayer seems half-assed compared to Battlefield: Bad Company 2. It also attempts to mimic Modern Warfare 2, but it doesn't implement the gameplay mechanics nearly as well. The single player campaign is ok, but the story is uninteresting and feels like a completely separate experience from the multiplayer, rather than all one game. My recommendation? Skip or rent, you won't be playing this for very long. Expand
  16. Oct 13, 2010
    1
    I'll break it down
    Multiplayer = 1
    Single player = 2 Graphics = 5 Sound = 5 Difficutly = 2 Single player is barely acceptable. The game play is extremely forced and controlled outside of the users ability to improvise. If this game was aiming for realism as I seem to understand everyone keeps suggesting, they failed miserably. In real life, the world is open and all of the world is
    I'll break it down
    Multiplayer = 1
    Single player = 2
    Graphics = 5
    Sound = 5
    Difficutly = 2

    Single player is barely acceptable. The game play is extremely forced and controlled outside of the users ability to improvise. If this game was aiming for realism as I seem to understand everyone keeps suggesting, they failed miserably. In real life, the world is open and all of the world is usable, not just what's scripted and confined to alleviate the need to actually write a good product. Plot is almost none existent.

    Multiplayer... where to start. Every time you die, you must reselect your class and select to spawn. Seriously? Can't let the person just respawn and enable a key to allow the user to change things when the user wants to change? You have to make them choose every time? lame...
    Team balancing... does not exist. If for some reason people leave on one side, the game never rebalances them. Spawn killing, galore. In some maps, never expect to move more than 2 feet from your spawn. Stat padding, this game specifically rewards persons who stat pad. What I mean is, if I can get more points than the other, then I can keep you pushed down in the ground. Literally, see spawn killing. Nothing like spawning into a mortar, rocket, or missile strike over and over and over again, which the person ordering the attacks gets rewarded with even more points for the kills, to repeat similar actions again and again. There is absolutely no voice chat in this game. if you want to talk to people, find a server with vent maybe? Dunno, since there's almost no information about any servers you might join. No way to see your ping or anything else like that. Currently the server browser capability seems to be broken, so you can't look for games. Friends do not map back to steam. You have to add them individually on your own, and both sides have to do it.

    Two different launchers for the product. Seriously? You'll have to reconfigure your settings for each version of the game (single player and multi). There is no leaning in multiplayer as there is in single player. Don't bind keys to cycle your weapons up or down, as the cycles does not loop; so once you've cycled down all the way, you have to cycle up all the way to get to the other end of its spectrum.

    Overall this game is very lacking in design and ingenuity. If there is a plot, its so shallow that not even a baby could drown in it. Buyers regret will probably sink in about 10 minutes into playing this game.

    Avoid this game if at all possible. Do not waste your time nor money.
    Expand
  17. Oct 19, 2010
    4
    The game is not worth the 60 dollars that Ea wants for the game and is not really even worth buying.The multi-player is a copy and paste horrible setting with next to zero innovative ideas.The single player has some amazing gun sounds and some really nice textures, but that's the high point of the game.

    *Warning some small general spoilers like what you might do through a mission.* The
    The game is not worth the 60 dollars that Ea wants for the game and is not really even worth buying.The multi-player is a copy and paste horrible setting with next to zero innovative ideas.The single player has some amazing gun sounds and some really nice textures, but that's the high point of the game.

    *Warning some small general spoilers like what you might do through a mission.*

    The horrible comes in waves just like the enemy's and the challenge is almost none. I played through the whole campaign with about 11 deaths(6 of which were on the hold out level) and the rest were me rushing through levels and enemy's spawning behind me to shoot me in the back.In the first mission I sometimes had a hard time telling if people behind me were enemy or team because the Hud would hide and players looked about the same from a small distance.

    The best missions out of the game to me were the sniping mission using the long range sniper for the majority of the mission, the Apache gunner mission and the atv mission(more for actually driving the atv).

    Overall the game is about a 4 more for the sound, graphics and small high point missions.The sounds are about a 6(when they aren't constantly repetitive) and graphics about a 5(they did copy and paste of textures in some spots where they should not have).The story is about a 4 and the difficulty is 1 considering hard was not much of a challenge at all.
    Expand
  18. Oct 15, 2010
    2
    Waste of money, really. This game deserved sooo much better. Since a review here has to be at least 150 characters long, I'm typing this, before entering..............
  19. Oct 20, 2010
    4
    As massive step backwards in the realm of the first person shooter. The SP is on rails, far too short and has some cliche by numbers set pieces. The MP is a snipers paradise and contains some of the worst spawning points seen yet. It's a haven for spawncampers and cheaters. Not a patch on BF2 i'm afraid.
  20. Oct 20, 2010
    3
    Terrible multiplayer action. Snipers are overpowered, spawns aren't protected. Maps are too small and too few. You die too quickly. I did not like the game play at all.
  21. Dec 30, 2010
    0
    Utter fail of a game. Game was releases in not even beta state. Bugs all over, and lack of very basic features. Gameplay is miserable. Every map is a camping fest around single choke point. Objective games are a joke compared to CoD series. Sounds are muted. Graphics is too shiny. Controls clunky. Movement awkward and choppy. Fail all around. How could they release this is beyond me...
  22. Oct 14, 2010
    2
    Single player lasted a whole 4 hours according to steam, and that was with a half hour break for a TV show, bathroom, getting up to walk around, etc. Expected SP to have alot more content seeing as it's based on realism, and yet it lacks in just about everything except a few action packed scenes. Multiplayer is much worse than most free games out there. You have very little choice inSingle player lasted a whole 4 hours according to steam, and that was with a half hour break for a TV show, bathroom, getting up to walk around, etc. Expected SP to have alot more content seeing as it's based on realism, and yet it lacks in just about everything except a few action packed scenes. Multiplayer is much worse than most free games out there. You have very little choice in weapons, and you cannot change how your toon looks or anything else expected out of most games. MP tends to devolve into a sniper camp fest and goes down hill from there. Save your money if you can. Expand
  23. Oct 18, 2010
    1
    How is it possible that our standards for video game content has been lowered so much that this (currently) has a 76 overall score?

    The single player, although graphicly interesting, was redundant and boring. Only 6 hours, tops, or playtime. Are FPS games so lazy now that they can just throw some glitter on a turd and expect the multiplayer to carry it through? 80% of the single player
    How is it possible that our standards for video game content has been lowered so much that this (currently) has a 76 overall score?

    The single player, although graphicly interesting, was redundant and boring. Only 6 hours, tops, or playtime. Are FPS games so lazy now that they can just throw some glitter on a turd and expect the multiplayer to carry it through? 80% of the single player was "hide behind object, shoot guys hiding behind other objects, move forward to next object, repeat". Terrible.

    I had hopes for the multiplayer. They were quickly stomped on by massive design oversight after another.

    The maps are nice looking, and the small parts of destroyable objects around the map are nice. They are far from making the game fun. Difficulty in seeing people, combined with no killcam whatsoever promotes HEAVY camping. Why run around when you can sit with a sniper rifle or scoped assault rifle with almost no recoil. You run around a corner and drop dead without any idea where the shot came from.

    Some multiplayer maps actually started opposing groups across open areas, which is beyond ridiculous.

    Smaller issues stack up, like displaying awarded medals at the end of the game. The descriptions fly by so fast, you can't keep up with what you actually did. If you look for a particular type of multiplayer game and are assigned a server, that server could start you on a completely different type on the next match, with no obvious way to leave without "forfeiting the match".

    One map (I forgot the name) has ended up 75% of the time pinning the team that starts in a particular corner just being herded in there and spawn camping. Dropping mortars, etc on the spawn with only two routes out that are easily campable.

    The controls for the campaign are different then the multiplayer due to not being able to perform certain actions. NO PRONE IN MULTIPLAYER?! WTF?!

    It's just a **** game, there's not much more to it. Yeah it's more realistic, and that was cool, but that's all it tried to bring to the table. A wood box that can blow up, or some wood boards that I can destroy do not make a game.

    Since I bought this game, I have averaged about an hour a day trying to get into it (I really did want to like the game) and have probably ended up spending twice that playing my older games like Modern Warfare 2, etc.

    Oh and the audio was pretty damn good. The voice acting in the background added a cool authenticity to the scenery. Unfortunately, I could barely hear it over me screaming about how terrible the game actually is.
    Expand
  24. Oct 18, 2010
    1
    Well this has to be the worst FPS of the decade!...i have been playing games since time began and this is just a very boring monotonous scripted pile of nonsense...its an insult to any serious FPS gamer! There is no real feeling of immersion or 'being there' its a very repetitive shoot a few Taliban's..move to the next area..shoot some more and repeat till the end...
    The odd time when you
    Well this has to be the worst FPS of the decade!...i have been playing games since time began and this is just a very boring monotonous scripted pile of nonsense...its an insult to any serious FPS gamer! There is no real feeling of immersion or 'being there' its a very repetitive shoot a few Taliban's..move to the next area..shoot some more and repeat till the end...
    The odd time when you get to use laser guided weapons is spoilt when they are scripted into your possession without the slightest control or hint of whats happening..you then have to blow up a few scripted tanks or outposts then the laser designator disappears as if by magic!..all very scripted and takes away any feeling you may have you are in a real battle...its all done for you in such a way as to make it unchallenging and unrealistic.
    The Ai of the enemy is so retarded its laughable...the same ducking and running animations are so unrealistic after a few minutes that you can easily predict their repetitive animated , boring behaviour. Graphics are so so..nothing special and certainly not worthy of a 2010 game...more like a 2008 or worse...
    the big problem with scripted games if not done right is they look scripted...i mean take the awesome half life 2...great scripted events and feels real with a great story...compare that game to this pile of junk which insults any serious gamer with its identical scripted events throughout the whole of the boring game!....apart from some dumbed down sniper missions its basically the same all the way through....this game is 'On the rails' even when its 'On the rails' if you know what i mean!..its just BORING...REPETITIVE....and way overpriced...i can only assume the high user scores of 10 are from members of the production team because no way is this game anything approaching a 5 never mind a 10!....in short avoid at all costs this game is an insult to gamers! ..you have been warned!...
    Expand
  25. Oct 22, 2010
    4
    Really wanted to give this game credit when it did something right. But some titles need to want to earn it:

    2 Studio's produced it :Dice(Multiplayer) and Danger Close(singleplayer). Dice prove that Counterstrike can be cloned. Danger Close's singleplayer has great ideas ie: use of fire suppression and support actions. But their rare. Game puts more emphisis on the player
    Really wanted to give this game credit when it did something right. But some titles need to want to earn it:

    2 Studio's produced it :Dice(Multiplayer) and Danger Close(singleplayer).

    Dice prove that Counterstrike can be cloned.

    Danger Close's singleplayer has great ideas ie: use of fire suppression and support actions. But their rare. Game puts more emphisis on the player occupying an exact, though unspecified grid on the map, to cue any action. Leaving a on the rails feeling to the whole scenario. Add to this channeled map design, and it really is on the rails(not to mention the game taking control of the player at times).

    Medal of Honor as a franchise deserved a more competent studio.

    Dice's multiplayer content, as I said before is a counterstrike clone. Suggesting that nothing except visual enhancement has happend in the genre, since the release of CS.

    Singleplayer and multiplayer are actually 2 separate titles neither resembling the other in sound gameplay and only slightly in visual.

    This tittle deserves a score of 4. Two points to each studio.
    Expand
  26. Jan 7, 2011
    2
    The game is severely unbalanced, I don't know what they were thinking. Shotguns can kill people across the map, rifles are better for sniping than the sniper rifles. Maps are some of the worst I've seen in a while. All the good players left the day after it was released, so all the players left are complete ****ters that just camp all the time and spam airstrikes, not even fun to kill themThe game is severely unbalanced, I don't know what they were thinking. Shotguns can kill people across the map, rifles are better for sniping than the sniper rifles. Maps are some of the worst I've seen in a while. All the good players left the day after it was released, so all the players left are complete ****ters that just camp all the time and spam airstrikes, not even fun to kill them because it isn't a challenge. Expand
  27. Dec 16, 2010
    0
    Slap on Bad Company 2, take out all aircraft and vehicles a few classes and a few weapons, and you got your self Medal of Honor, it really lost its touch and its definitely not worth $49 go for Bad Company 2 or better yet, wait for Battlefield 3
  28. Dec 26, 2010
    4
    I read the reviews (critics and users) and stayed away until it went on sale on Steam for Xmas. Still not worth the money! The single player campaign is great up to a point but it really is only 6 hours long! Multiplayer is buggy and doesn't cold a candle to Modern Warefare2.
  29. Nov 27, 2011
    4
    The single player mode of this game is actually OK. Danger Close does a great job at creating an immersive single player campaign that follows a storyline set in 2002-2005 Afghanistan in response to the United States' anti-terrorism campaign. The game suffers from a weak enemy AI which makes the game incredibly easy. Overall the campaign is enjoyable, though short. The multiplayer isThe single player mode of this game is actually OK. Danger Close does a great job at creating an immersive single player campaign that follows a storyline set in 2002-2005 Afghanistan in response to the United States' anti-terrorism campaign. The game suffers from a weak enemy AI which makes the game incredibly easy. Overall the campaign is enjoyable, though short. The multiplayer is repetitive. The maps are good, some are better than others, while some are chaotic depending on what type of game you are playing. Problems with it is its design concept. The multiplayer is nothing like battlefield more like CoD style but with less depth in classes which makes game even less enjoyable in multiplayer session. Overall, The game felt rushed, and design idea is poorly executed. I recommend to get the game below $10 if you do want to play the SP campaign. Expand
  30. Jun 29, 2012
    0
    This is possibly the worst excuse for a 'modern game' ever. Single Player (as multiplayer was for some reason made separately): A boring, excessively linear campaign with no interesting or engaging story whatsoever. The physics are terrible, and the graphics are atrocious. They wouldn't look out of place in one of the old conflict games. The enemy AI acts as though it hasn't been finished.This is possibly the worst excuse for a 'modern game' ever. Single Player (as multiplayer was for some reason made separately): A boring, excessively linear campaign with no interesting or engaging story whatsoever. The physics are terrible, and the graphics are atrocious. They wouldn't look out of place in one of the old conflict games. The enemy AI acts as though it hasn't been finished. Too many times I've seen enemy fighters casually strolling around and dying up to ten seconds after I kill them. Finally, its very short, lasting me only three and a half hours. Multiplayer: I've played this for more than eighty hours to unlock everything and get a good feel for it. My conclusion is that I wasted eighty+ hours of my life. I'll start with dev support, of which there doesn't appear to have ever been. Maps are full to the brim of rocks no taller than ankle high that you have to jump over. I've lost count of the amount of times I've died because i suddenly get stuck on them. There are also issues like gaps in walls (which obviously haven't been placed properly) which you can be shot through without being able to see your attacker. Any active devs would have patched these issues. Again, physics are awful. I've played with friends to test this, and headshots do not work. I had a friend crouch, and I shot him point blank in the head with an M16. I got a hit marker, no kill. It took a further four headshots to kill him. This repeats for every other weapon. I only ever achieved headshots when shooting just above the chest on the neck, which forgive me if I'm wrong, isn't the location of one's head. Getting kills online is just as random. Many a time I've melee'd a player, seen blood spurt from there sprite, then had them turn around and shoot me. Realism mode is a joke, and not a funny one. Even here, kills require half a clip and grenades have to be touching a player when they explode to kill. Only yesterday I found a player hiding behind a box in the corner of two walls. As i was too far away to risk breaking cover for a melee kill, i loaded up my noob tube and fired at him from around 10 feet away. Direct hit, no kill. I reloaded, closed to four feet away and fired again. Direct hit, no kill. Friendly fire is quite the opposite. Hitting a mentally challenged teammate who runs in front of you kills in as little as two shots. There is a clear difference in team and enemy health where team damage is concerned. There aren't many weapons in multiplayer, especially concerning handguns, and the ones present fire exactly the same as each other. Shotguns aren't used by anyone, as they cannot kill even at close range. Battle rifles can't kill at any range, especially the G10. Snipers are a constant issue in most maps, although when using the sniper rifle myself, I can't see why. It requires the neck-headshot for a kill, with all other shots even to the heart resulting in a lonely hit marker. Some people just spend so much time camping they get used to it, especially in Helmand Valley (worst map). The maps have been designed quite well, excepting Helmand valley, with very few spots being completely hidden. The airfield map is a favourite, though for some reason is declining on the hugely laggy community servers. They aren't designed with spawn points in mind though, as blatant spawn killing is easy and frequent on all maps. The tower at the end of the airfield actually looks over the final enemy spawn point. Cheating is also quite an issue. I've personally watched three aimbot users randomly turning around super-fast and getting neck-headshots. I personally keep a list of rude, abusive or cheating players, and it is dominated by MoH players. Every time I play with any of them their K/D's are sky high and killing them just doesn't work. Obviously many would say. 'get over it, you're probably wrong', which may be true, but four of those people i wrote down have since been banned after being caught cheating on certain servers. Finally, walls. Again. Bullets penetrate every wall in the game without losing power. Rocks (?!) have the same problem. There is no such thing as cover in this game. Pre-order weapons aren't available even now, even as DLC. Obviously this means most players are denied some cool weapons to break up the monotony of the same boring weapons over and over, and the devs miss an obvious source of income. Conclusion: The devs got bored. That has to be it. This reminds me of Breach in that it has excellent potential, but has been abandoned in a vanilla state with soooooo many issues. I wish I could get my 80 hours refunded. And as for the common argument of those who post 10's (?!), the game is about as realistic as Magicka. It is nothing like the situation in Afghanistan, has no realistic physics and no convincing story or graphics. Please present a viable argument. Oh, and watch out for 1RCN servers. Half the guys flashing their tag have hacked or ignore hackers. Expand
  31. Feb 13, 2011
    0
    I agree with most 0's posted on here this is a terrible game, whoever came up with it should have been fired for coming up with such a fiasco. Not to mention it cost EA millions in investment, their shares fell, nobody bought it, I am sure that this was instantly forgotten in about two weeks. If it wasn't worth buying it the day it was released, then there is no use buying it now, I don'tI agree with most 0's posted on here this is a terrible game, whoever came up with it should have been fired for coming up with such a fiasco. Not to mention it cost EA millions in investment, their shares fell, nobody bought it, I am sure that this was instantly forgotten in about two weeks. If it wasn't worth buying it the day it was released, then there is no use buying it now, I don't think anybody actually plays it. SO the question is what the @#$%& is EA doing, what happened to the guys from Activision they hired? It would have been prudent to ask for your input since they were already hired anyway f%^% puss^ ass dumb&&*es! Expand
  32. Nov 5, 2010
    1
    "This game is about realism, not arcade shooting" How can they say such things??! I just don't understand how could be a game realistic when you can complete it on the hardest difficulty level with using only your pistol and even without any aiming you can kill your enemies mostly with head shots!! What?? I give "1" instead of "0" becouse of the work the developers invested into the game."This game is about realism, not arcade shooting" How can they say such things??! I just don't understand how could be a game realistic when you can complete it on the hardest difficulty level with using only your pistol and even without any aiming you can kill your enemies mostly with head shots!! What?? I give "1" instead of "0" becouse of the work the developers invested into the game. I'm very disappointed about this game becouse it got 75 metascore.. i know they must have given out a lot of games for free to the developers becouse of this "big name" can't get too bad reviews after all. But to say the thruth I'm happy I didn't buy it just saw it at a friend how terrible it is. I bought COD MW2 at the 1st day it came out.. the multiplayer is terrible at that game, but still I'm happy I bought that game since the single player is awsome and I re-play the game like a good movie.. but this game :( It's even too boring for the 1st play, the multiplayer is a cheap experience and it doesn't even look cool :( People out there!! If you don't want to waste your money, you just don't play with it! Expand
  33. Oct 16, 2010
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Single-player is far too short. I ended the game at 4 hrs and 20 min on normal difficulty. The Multi-player is fast and clean. But there are not as many options as you have in CoD. CoD will still be the hill giant for the next few years. Modern Warfare 2 was better and Black Ops will be much better too... Expand
  34. Nov 8, 2010
    0
    the CRITICS that rated this game a 74 should be **** but then wait we would probally be ASSRAPING EA employees at the same time! i think EA has its employees submitting positive feedback towards it FAILURE of a game!
  35. Nov 7, 2010
    3
    singleplayer score: 1. Insulting AI, horrible scripts, all linear gameplay.

    multiplayer score: 4. Better graphics and sound than SP. One good game mode (combat mission) but with only 3 maps to play. Horrible bullet registration and too large lag prediction makes it play worse than BC2 since here the maps are a lot smaller and with more cover. Poor balancing of the sniper class. Went from
    singleplayer score: 1. Insulting AI, horrible scripts, all linear gameplay.

    multiplayer score: 4. Better graphics and sound than SP. One good game mode (combat mission) but with only 3 maps to play. Horrible bullet registration and too large lag prediction makes it play worse than BC2 since here the maps are a lot smaller and with more cover. Poor balancing of the sniper class. Went from clearly OP due to lag prediction, hit boxes, and one hit kill rifles to unplayable because of small maps and cover available every 5 feet.

    Overall dissapointing
    Expand
  36. May 19, 2012
    4
    The single player campaign is short, the multiplayer is abandoned. The game gives a sense of unfinished in all its aspects, graphics, sound, gameplay. Maybe they rushed to release this game, but really the Medal of Honor franchise deserves better.
  37. Nov 4, 2010
    1
    Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.
  38. Aug 19, 2013
    0
    Terrible, terrible multiplayer. Physics are horrible. Running feels like you're trudging through molasses. Hit registration is terrible. Maps are tiny choke-point campfests with glitches everywhere.
  39. Dec 25, 2012
    4
    First lets do a simple comparison, Call of Duty has a good campaign and fast multiplayer environment kinda like speed ball if you will BF3 has a great campaign and a vast multiplayer instead of calling in a bomb strike like on call of duty you need to get in a plane and drop some loads. Now with that being said Medal Of Honor failed in multiple areas here, The campaign was boring andFirst lets do a simple comparison, Call of Duty has a good campaign and fast multiplayer environment kinda like speed ball if you will BF3 has a great campaign and a vast multiplayer instead of calling in a bomb strike like on call of duty you need to get in a plane and drop some loads. Now with that being said Medal Of Honor failed in multiple areas here, The campaign was boring and multiplayer is like call of duty but worse way worse it makes COD look polished. the Graphics are pretty bad the mechanics are crap especially running you get that tunnel vision when you run and cant turn quick. Overall i got the game for $10 steam holiday sale so there are no regrets but i feel MOH has had its last chance with my wallet especially with all of the advertisement which had more thought put in than that of the game. Expand
  40. Aug 19, 2013
    0
    Horrible multiplayer. Bad maps, bad guns, bad graphics, bad animations, bad hit registration, bad everything. Absolute junk. Bad, bad, bad, bad, 150 char.
  41. Mar 28, 2013
    3
    How the hell could this game get bigger score than Warfighter? Graphics are very bad sometimes though its Frostbite, your weapon stands still no matter how ast you move the mouse, scripts are f****d up, you have to restart a mission in single 10 times to make it work, reflex sight looks like a piece of crap on a piece of glass, there are maximum 15 things, that fall apart if you shoot the,How the hell could this game get bigger score than Warfighter? Graphics are very bad sometimes though its Frostbite, your weapon stands still no matter how ast you move the mouse, scripts are f****d up, you have to restart a mission in single 10 times to make it work, reflex sight looks like a piece of crap on a piece of glass, there are maximum 15 things, that fall apart if you shoot the, though in battlefield bad company 2 (working with frostbite too) nearly every thing in the game fell apart if you shoot them or throw grenades at it, story sucks a lot, intro mission 30 minutes long(wtf?), your secondary weapon has infinite bullets no matter its a pistol or an MP7, friendly NPCs dont cant kill anybody, the game sometimes forgots to load the map so you just run in the nowhere, sniper rifle's scope stands still, so you dont have to hold your breath to mak it stand still. In multiplayer is no killcam so the campers give you spawnkill every damn time. Expand
  42. Mar 28, 2015
    3
    One of the absolute worst FPS games i have ever played on PC. Disjointed story that switches between groups makes you never feel for the character or the one you control. Its a great example of how far the FPS genre has moved while this game seems stuck in the era the first Medal of Honor Allied Assault was released in. Todays war fps games might still have too many cliches and the sameOne of the absolute worst FPS games i have ever played on PC. Disjointed story that switches between groups makes you never feel for the character or the one you control. Its a great example of how far the FPS genre has moved while this game seems stuck in the era the first Medal of Honor Allied Assault was released in. Todays war fps games might still have too many cliches and the same gameplay mechanics but most of the best ones make up for it in other departments like gameplay variation and extremely satisfying weapon/gun play mechanics.

    Medal of Honor however doesnt bring anything to the table, from a boring amount of weapons in a abysmal short 5 hour singleplayer campaign to the same type of missions throughout where you keep assaulting forward against fodder enemies and plow them down easily to missions where youre being dictated by the friendly npcs to constantly follow evens that might aswell have been quicktime events.

    The PC version is also suffering from consolitus which means you will be having a magnifying glass FOV at "55" thats bound to cause motion sickness for most me included, its something thats only changeable by searching for a third party program for the single player campaign.

    The visuals arent too bad but the early night missions in the city & villages definitely look more outdated than some of the later missions. The only positive i can say about this game is that the audio & mic communication dialogue is pretty good between the npc's, it does a decent job at making you feel youre in a special team or warzone.

    Theres no reason to replay this game, the single player is a flat experience thats over too quick and the weapons dont have a feel of "oomph" like the better FPS games in its release day or the years around it.

    Graphics: 7.0/10
    Sound: 8.0/10
    Gameplay: 6.0/10
    Replay Value: 3.5/10

    Overall: 5.5/10
    Expand
  43. Aug 18, 2016
    4
    The game is ugly but using a lot of PC system resource and this is the worst FPS game ever!
    Using GTX960 and new 2015 components to run the game, the Frame rate always under 70FPS (1080p) with the choppy and lagging. I can get more than 70FPS with Rise of Tomb Raider.
    I've ever played MoH series before. But when I tried to know the gameplay and the content, I am so disappointed on it.
  44. Nov 2, 2017
    4
    Крайзис лучше, там было ощущения что я иду куда хочу, а тут я должен идти по "рельсам" и по контрольным точкам, это скучно/
  45. Sep 24, 2013
    4
    It's too easy, it's too short (sub 5 hours for a mediocre player like me) and it's agonisingly linear.
    There is very little story or any emotional investment in the characters as they chop and change so often. It holds your hand for most of the time and then misses out critical information (like use 4 to target the mortars in the gunfighter mission). There are invisible walls everywhere
    It's too easy, it's too short (sub 5 hours for a mediocre player like me) and it's agonisingly linear.
    There is very little story or any emotional investment in the characters as they chop and change so often. It holds your hand for most of the time and then misses out critical information (like use 4 to target the mortars in the gunfighter mission). There are invisible walls everywhere and the AI on both sides is very stupid glitching on scenery and failing to trigger the next section in some cases.
    On the upside it looks very nice, the voice acting is excellent as is the sound work. I liked the few bits of variety we did get (helicopters, sniper sections) but these were very limited compared to the corridor shooter of the rest of the game.
    I've not tried multiplayer but frankly I can't really be bothered as I already have CoD and CS available as military shooters.
    If you are looking for a great shooter with a story look elsewhere. If you want a few hours mindless blasting and can pick this up cheap then give it a go.
    Expand
  46. Aug 15, 2013
    4
    Bug and glitches plague this game. It's sad really, because some parts of it are very well done. The sounds and graphical effects are among the best I've seen. Just about everything else is poorly done. Squad mates are constantly getting in your way, you're given vague objectives and will often times not know what to do. Sometimes your squad mate will say "Take out that enemy right there!"Bug and glitches plague this game. It's sad really, because some parts of it are very well done. The sounds and graphical effects are among the best I've seen. Just about everything else is poorly done. Squad mates are constantly getting in your way, you're given vague objectives and will often times not know what to do. Sometimes your squad mate will say "Take out that enemy right there!" Where? "He's right there! Get him so we can move on!" Yeah, terrible AI. Enemies spawn right next to you and move awkwardly, sprinting is pretty much the same exact speed as walking, uninspired level design, 4 hour long campaign... the list goes on and on.

    It's a shame. I really wanted to like this game as I'm a huge fan of the franchise. All we can hope for now is that EA can get a brain and take the franchise back to its roots... singleplayer campaign focused, no squad mates, WWII setting...
    Expand
  47. Aug 17, 2013
    2
    The worst single player shooter I have played in a long time. super generic, linear, boring level design with thousands of blatantly stupid AI enemies that fall like flies. I played the whole game through in hard mode and it was never a challenge. I could run to the enemy spawn and stab them to death more than once. The story is generic US american about heroes in a seal team that shootsThe worst single player shooter I have played in a long time. super generic, linear, boring level design with thousands of blatantly stupid AI enemies that fall like flies. I played the whole game through in hard mode and it was never a challenge. I could run to the enemy spawn and stab them to death more than once. The story is generic US american about heroes in a seal team that shoots everything that moves. The weapons all feel the same, none are really fun. I just used the pistol as my main gun at some point to give me some alteration and a bit of a challenge. But as you have practically unlimited ammo all the time you can also just go full auto and run around like a mental. You will still be successfull. 2 points only for nice sound and okay graphics. But for a frostbyte engine there is nearly no destructable environment. Expand
  48. Aug 19, 2013
    0
    Avoid this trash. I only got it because it was in the Humble Bundle. Absolute waste of disk space. Terrible. Not worth playing. Rubbish. Uninstalled.
  49. Aug 22, 2013
    3
    It's a game about realism, so it disabled the HUD.

    It still shows bodyshots and headshots when you kill an enemy, and the guns have no recoil. Enemy AI is very limited to what its scripted to do, the enemies will never change and always be predictable. The gameplay is stale, it has less character then a cardboard box. It usually limits to: You're a bad-ass, shoot people cause they
    It's a game about realism, so it disabled the HUD.

    It still shows bodyshots and headshots when you kill an enemy, and the guns have no recoil.
    Enemy AI is very limited to what its scripted to do, the enemies will never change and always be predictable.

    The gameplay is stale, it has less character then a cardboard box.
    It usually limits to: You're a bad-ass, shoot people cause they aren't American.

    Multiplayer is not very fun, boring and badly designed maps, and the servers are usually dead, the EXP and leveling system is very cliche.

    Singleplayer is 2 hours of torture, you go through Afghanistan and kill people, and the guns are unrealistic and you run very slowly, enemies are not scared of being shot in the face, if you shoot a enemy in the face with the pistol, he shrugs it off like nothing happens, when you shoot his feet on accident, he screams in pain and moves back into cover.

    This is a bad game, it tried to hard to be a good game, and didn't put any effort into characters.
    Expand
  50. Aug 23, 2013
    3
    I remember the old Medal of Honor games, this is a shame for the brand, this game has bugs(not to mention the DUMBEST AI I ever seen, even in Hard mode) and stupid things (your teammates carries infinite ammo and you can't, WTF The game is boring, the story is poorly written (the same story about the evil middle-east guys bla bla bla), I don't know what is good about this game...luckily iI remember the old Medal of Honor games, this is a shame for the brand, this game has bugs(not to mention the DUMBEST AI I ever seen, even in Hard mode) and stupid things (your teammates carries infinite ammo and you can't, WTF The game is boring, the story is poorly written (the same story about the evil middle-east guys bla bla bla), I don't know what is good about this game...luckily i got this with a bundle of other games for just 1 not worth a penny tho. Expand
  51. Sep 2, 2013
    3
    Played only the single player campaign. If you plan on buying this game, get ready for bugs (I had to reload the game plenty of times to be able to perform some in game action needed for level progress), stupid opponents, practically no story line, immortal team members, confusing level design and confusing graphic design at times.

    Because of these, I found the game hard to enjoy. The
    Played only the single player campaign. If you plan on buying this game, get ready for bugs (I had to reload the game plenty of times to be able to perform some in game action needed for level progress), stupid opponents, practically no story line, immortal team members, confusing level design and confusing graphic design at times.

    Because of these, I found the game hard to enjoy. The enemies are too easily to eliminate to feel any satisfaction, the bugs make you fight the game itself instead of the bad guys. The absence of a story line and uninspired levels got me bored too quickly too often.

    Overall, this is not a title you want to spend your on unless it's on a huge sale and you're out of FPS games at the moment.
    Expand
  52. Sep 4, 2013
    2
    Disappointing. The stoy is too short and completely uninteresting. Super-easy even on the hardest setting. Not challenging at all. Really good graphics and even better sound, but its flaws kill the sense of immersion completelly. It's too linear, you're always led, directed by a squadmate who tells you exactly what to do, and don't you dare doing something different because then the gameDisappointing. The stoy is too short and completely uninteresting. Super-easy even on the hardest setting. Not challenging at all. Really good graphics and even better sound, but its flaws kill the sense of immersion completelly. It's too linear, you're always led, directed by a squadmate who tells you exactly what to do, and don't you dare doing something different because then the game goes from absurdly-easy to totally-imposible. Sometimes it feels more like watching a (very boring) film than playing a game.

    It's a real shame, because the gameplay is really good and you're put into very different situations, it's just the total lack of freedom that ruins it all.

    Could've been a 8 or 9 but for me it never got past 2.
    Expand
  53. Sep 21, 2013
    4
    This game is probably best described as one of those big, dumb action movies that make no sense but are so fun to watch. There's basically nothing else going for this game, though. It's literally a note-for-note copy of Call of Duty, and it's not subtle about it either. The game is also criminally short at four hours; I completed it at 3 hours after I bought and installed it.

    Oh well.
    This game is probably best described as one of those big, dumb action movies that make no sense but are so fun to watch. There's basically nothing else going for this game, though. It's literally a note-for-note copy of Call of Duty, and it's not subtle about it either. The game is also criminally short at four hours; I completed it at 3 hours after I bought and installed it.

    Oh well. It was worth the five bucks. If you happen to catch it on sale, pick it up. It's not bad, it's just below average.
    Expand
  54. May 29, 2014
    3
    The good: Decently set up stages, enjoyable feeling of being in the thick of our most recent wars, tribute to our fallen soldiers, fun times flying in helicopters and in night missions.
    The bad: SHORT GAME. Beat it in four hours, only 12 stages. Limited weaponry for normal "running and gunning" missions. Ye olde bad ending. Mediocre plot, basically "kill the Taliban/Al Qaeda/Chechnyans".
    The good: Decently set up stages, enjoyable feeling of being in the thick of our most recent wars, tribute to our fallen soldiers, fun times flying in helicopters and in night missions.
    The bad: SHORT GAME. Beat it in four hours, only 12 stages. Limited weaponry for normal "running and gunning" missions. Ye olde bad ending. Mediocre plot, basically "kill the Taliban/Al Qaeda/Chechnyans". Glitches galore, from the ability to cause the game to lock up and prevent progress just by killing enemies too fast, to awful physics, to improper landings and movement. Beat the game basically by M4 sniping everybody in regular missions, no need for other weapons at all, never melee'd aside from a mandatory moment in the game. "Indefinite enemy respawn until you walk up to this boulder and kill this one guy" syndrome.
    The ugly: Character models, movies, and textures. I shouldn't be seeing pixellated grass every five seconds on highest settings, geez.
    The verdict: Not worth the $20 it is now. If you want it, hopefully Humble Bundle'll redo their bundle for EA. Doubt it, though.
    Expand
Metascore
72

Mixed or average reviews - based on 26 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 16 out of 26
  2. Negative: 1 out of 26
  1. Sep 19, 2011
    75
    Overall, Medal of Honor is visually and aurally outstanding, but it needs much more polish on gameplay, scripted events, character/scene transitions and narrative construction before it's ready to really run with the big dogs.
  2. Jan 15, 2011
    60
    Medal of Honor doesn't become the current image of Electronic Arts – probably the most "humane" of all videogame corporations. Danger Close Games' debut reminds of a time when EA was a gloomy assembly line churning out soulless yearly sequels and movie tie-ins.
  3. LEVEL (Czech Republic)
    Jan 13, 2011
    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]