User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 443 Ratings

User score distribution:

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. 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. Oct 15, 2010
    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
  3. Oct 12, 2010
    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 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
  4. Oct 12, 2010
    Worst Game 2010. Played the Singleplayer yesterday in only 6 hours. A few bugs and scripting errors occurred. It was just boring. No atmosphere, no action. Just kill Talibans. Move there. Kill Talibans. Hold Position. Kill Talibans. Move there. ...
  5. Oct 14, 2010
    I'm not sure why this game has received such poor reviews.. I've been an avid gamer for 15 years and I have to say this game is a great mix between Counterstrike mechanics, Call of Duty: MW2, and Bad Company 2. The graphics are very good and the audio is probably the best I have EVER heard. The other pro is that the weapons feel spot on. If you are bored of the CoD:MW2 perk BS and the pro camping to receive high end call ins or need a break from Bad Company 2, MoH's multiplayer is filled with very skilled players and the competition is intense. The gameplay mechanics and attention to moderate realism really make Medal of Honor stand out in the multiplayer arena as the game will force many to adopt authentic battlefield tactics but not break the game enough that you wouldn't be able to play as a highly aggressive one man army. This game is very fun and addictive and I wouldn't let the biased critics deter you if you are in the market for a new shooter. Expand
  6. Oct 12, 2010
    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 $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.
  7. Oct 13, 2010
    I am very confused as to why MoH is getting such poor reviews. It would almost seem as though everyone who hates the game are just whining about it not being a Modern Warfare 2 clone. Allow me to directly address the major complaints of those who don't like the game. First off, people complain that the story isn't as good as that of Modern Warfare 2 or Bad Company 2. The average soldier (or even the average special ops. operator) doesn't break into a Russian sub pen and launch nuclear missiles at Washington D.C. or save the United States from a Russian invasion by destroying an EMP device on a transport plane in mid-air. Modern Warfare 2 and Bad Company 2 are about ridiculous, over the top action. That's fine, but Medal of Honor is trying to put you in the boots of actual soldiers. Real soldiers don't save the world like you see in other games. They get their missions and carry them out to the best of their ability. That being said, the Medal of Honor campaign is captivating and fun in my opinion, and the missions flow together very well. People complain about it containing scripted events, but so did Modern Warfare 2 and Bad Company 2, and I think MoH actually blends more seamlessly between gameplay and cutscenes/scripted events than either of the other games did. Critics also need to stop complaining about length. Portal was 3-4 hours long, and it still won Game of the Year in 2007 from dozens of reviewers. Focus on quality, not quantity. I'm sick of games padding themselves out with stupid story elements. I still haven't finished Bioshock because I got sick of all the random fetch quests it set you out on. Lots of critics also complain that the AI sucks and whine about how they will just sit behind a wall and shoot at you, instead of run around and reposition like in BC2 and MW2. This complaint is the stupidest I've seen so far. Why on earth would you run out from cover while being shot at? It's always bothered me that AI in other games does this. Sure, it gives the player easier shots, but it makes no sense. People (and therefore any AI trying to simulate them) like to not be shot, and the best way to do so is to take cover and return fire. The AI in Medal of Honor does just this, and it's nice to see some AI that has any sense of self-preservation. Closing comments: I really thought the peek system was awesome. Not only do you get to lean left and right from behind cover like in other games, but you can also pop your head up and down. This becomes extremely useful to reload or take cover, then pop back up and return fire. Critics complain about graphics and other random things. I thought the graphics were just fine. I honestly don't know what those people are complaining about. Reviewers need to stop comparing this to Bad Company 2 and Modern Warfare 2. It's not trying to be just like them; this is a different kind of game. If you're looking for a more realistic modern warfare game instead of the over-the-top James Bond-style action, check out Medal of Honor. It's a great buy. Expand
  8. Oct 25, 2010
    Call of Duty series is better. But if you like war shooters you have to play this.
    The campaign is very good, has very intense moments, and its varied. I bought this game ONLY for the campaign. And its good. I Love war shooter games
    The sound is excellent. I played with headphones and the effects and music are top notch.
    The graphics are not that good, it uses Unreal 3 engine for SP
    portion and Frostbite for MP. On SP, it looks very good on some parts but overall the looks are mediocre and it requires a lot of horsepower where other games do not (Crysis plays better on my pc...). Textures are bland, enemies move weird, cant shoot ANYTHING except enemies, particles are crap and for a PC it has a lot of tearing.
    The gameplay is very good on most parts. But the game has bugs. Its ridden with bugs, some gamebreaking bugs are terrible and needs fixing as soon as possible (search for Hellfire bug).
    I did not play MP portion though.
    Recommend it for SP only and only for fans.
  9. Oct 12, 2010
    Singleplayer is good - it's not bravado stupid style rambo shooter like mw2, it have a sense and its targets, story is ok for shooter, characters and voices done nicely, sound is great. High mountain ambient is new and interesting. In first levels graphics is average but after 2nd U3 engine shows his ability's, and some time it's looks very pretty, any way graphic is good for today. Multiplayer - is something between MW2 and BC2, but it's not as good as both. So if you like MW2 or BC2 you should go on playing it, reason to try MOH multiplayer is only if you didn't find what you want in one of them. Expand
  10. Oct 13, 2010
    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
  11. 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
  12. Dec 10, 2010
    I guess everyone are looking at this as a CoD little brother, but that's not the way it should be rated. Bad things first: the single player is 5 hrs long. Stop. If you want a longer game you'd better get an RPG. Nevertheless, for these 5hours you will be running, shooting, and you will hold your breath 'til the end (awesome in my opinion!). Music and ambience are perfect for this kind of games, it felt epic. It could have been better, but there's always some space for improvement. Not perfect, but definitely a nice game! Expand
  13. Dec 24, 2010
    I enjoy FPS games and really enjoyed MOH. The sounds were the best of ANY FPS I've ever played. The story was interesting without going overboard like Black Ops. Great Fun...a little linear at times but still very enjoyable. The time flew and I have replayed it several times since. The 50 Cal sniper missions and the gunship airstrikes are among the best. WHile no game is a 10 this is certainly a 9-9.5 Expand
  14. Jul 4, 2011
    Very solid and enjoyable single player experience. It's very obvious the developers took the advice from actual members of the special forces community and tried to incorporate their experiences into the game. It suffers from some scripting issues, but nothing that will delude the experience on the first play through. The story is easier to follow and isn't as irrational as say MW2, so that was refreshing. About an average length of 6 hours.
    The multi-player on the other hand is a bit rough around the edges. It's clear they have a solid idea, but the maps and weapons have a lot of balance issues that ultimately takes away from the experience. It needs a bit more refinement and customer feedback before being on the same level as a Call of Duty or Battlefield game.
  15. Jan 3, 2012
    If you're thinking "Call of Duty", stop reading and go waste your money on MW3, 4, or whatever else has just come out. If not, welcome to the most underrated game of 2010.

    Medal of Honor's strongest point is easily the single player. World-class graphics, sound that you feel in your gut, compelling dialog, well orchestrated story, and epic attention to detail. Your weapon remembers the
    round still in the chamber between reloading! The ending was a real mind blower, and the atmosphere was rivaled only by games like STALKER and Metro. When the credits rolled, I just had a sense of wholeness. Now I'm convinced The Catalyst is about Afghanistan.

    My single problem was the "press any key to skip", which served as my only reminder of reality when I had to reload the section after accidentally right clicking out of tense instinct. It's that compelling.

    Multiplayer didn't deliver DICE's legendary game play standards, but it did give me an opportunity to appreciate yet another of the campaigns hidden qualities. My first experience as the Taliban in killing an American soldier left me with a sick feeling in my stomach. Any game that makes you feel bad about killing needs to be played by every gamer.
  16. 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
  17. Oct 13, 2010
    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.
  18. Oct 13, 2010
    what a game omg, singleplayer is amazingly fantastic in all ways. Multiplayer is very enjoyable and intense, This game is a must buy in my eyes.superb!!!!
  19. Oct 16, 2010
    I thought the single player has allot more depth then its competitors. The single player was definitely short but that is quickly becoming the norm. I beat it in a little bit longer time then MW2. But games are now designed more for the Multiplayer aspect, due to the continual money reimbursement for additional maps ect. The graphics on this game are awesome, mechanics were a little off but they released a patch and they have corrected most of the errors on the multiplayer, but the biggest seller is they are working to make it a continuously better gaming experience, by implementing user feedback and beta player feedback. Im looking forwards to more of this saga. Expand
  20. Oct 13, 2010
    Single-player was fun, a little short but, it was fun. It was nice to see a game where your not the one killing every thing in sight, being asked to cover someone while they do something way out of their training ( defuse bomb,hack computer, etc) and saving the world from everything. The levels them selves didn't feel to long or to short, I was never thinking when will this end? The game is a bit too easy for my liking, but didn't have those "getting kill because I was told to hurry up and advance/retreat moments" nearly as much as MW. Only glitch i had was mission glitched and had to restart to complete. The multiplayer seems like another generic shooter with aspects of bad company 2 and MW in it, which is to bad i believe it could have done better.I hope they patch the game to fix any bugs and not give up on it. I am also hoping to see a sequel. Expand
  21. Oct 13, 2010
    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.
  22. Oct 14, 2010
    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 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
  23. Oct 14, 2010
    I actually purchased the PC version of this game and it it light years better than the PS3 rental I got as well. The PS3 game was sluggish and froze often. Just not as smooth as it should have been. The PC version of multiplayer looks gorgeous and was much smoother and crisper.
  24. Oct 14, 2010
    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.
  25. Oct 15, 2010
    Moh is nice game with a decent graphics and technology, unreal 3. Game is very action packed if you compare it to crappy bfbc 2 and is very near to Modern Warfare 2. Single player is good: short campaign and dynamic. Story is normal action film/game story but scripted scenes are well done. Multi player as all ways is the better side of this game; good maps and weapon customization with score-chain awards, its realistic too unlike BFBC 2 (you need to fire 3 bullets with SVU sniper to enemy when he/she dies). Well the best DICE game ever that ive played ever. (10.0) Expand
  26. Oct 15, 2010
    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%
  27. Oct 15, 2010
    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.
  28. Oct 16, 2010
    I like it. It's exactly between BFBC2 and MW2 arcade **** I was bored after playing MW2 arcade style but BFBC2 is more about running than killing. MOH is exactly what I was looking for.
    Minus pts: very short and easy SP (5hrs max)
    Plus pts: audio(DICE rocks), graphic, MP
  29. Oct 18, 2010
    Its a good mix of Mw2 and BC2, I actually like MoH more than I liked both MW2 and BC2, yes there are bugs, but there are bugs in every game, only difference is that in MW2 or MoH bugs are unacceptable, but for some weird reason all the bugs in the halo franchise are fun, and people just laugh at them, and then continue to bash other games for having bugs. All in all, for me this was a mw2 beater. but they could've added more guns, but maybe it'll come in the future, I sure hope so. Expand
  30. Oct 20, 2010
    The game is anything but CoD in the singleplayer. That's probably it's biggest issue. Nothing too over-the-top is happening, but the attention to detail is mind-boggling once you look into it. The story took me a good 8 hours to complete, on Hard difficulty (anything lower is just for content tourists, if you ask me), and it was indeed impressive.

    Graphics-wise it certainly doesn't
    shine, but neither does it fail. Pretty decent looking, still, considering it's using th ancient Unreal 3.

    The sounds are by far the best I've heard in a game's singleplayer (Bad Company 2's multiplayer is superior, especially with the almighty War Tapes option turned on)

    Multiplayer might be the bigger let-down, given that balance is a bit squeaky in some places, but DICE is already on the job, providing patches. This new auto-updater used in BFBC2 and MoH really is good.

    Lag isn't such a big problem as in Bad Company 2, despite running on the same Frostbite 1.5 game engine. Maybe it's the lack of massive destruction, maybe it's having only 24 players instead of 32, or maybe the netcode really did improve, but we can't say for sure.

    Anyway, the controls are pretty straight forward, and the gameplay, while at a first glance may look similar to Bad Company 2, is not a copy of BFBC2. I learned that the hard way.

    The story-driven game mode "Combat mission", while very similar to Bad Company 2's "Rush" is a real neat time-waster. Though if you prefer something less team-oriented and more action packed you might want to try "Team Assault" - straight forward TDM.

    There's a lot to say, but to keep it short : many reviews are either biased anti-EA or biased pro-CoD, otherwise, I couldn't see how this would get such low scores. It's an incredibly addictive game despite looking shallow at first glance.

    If you're looking for the flash of CoD, this might not be for you, but I strongly recommend this to people looking for a slightly different experience, both in the singleplayer component, as online.

    With 1.7 million units sold in the first week, and the ongoing support, I can't see how this is a failed game.
  31. Oct 20, 2010
    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.
  32. Oct 24, 2010
    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 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.
  33. Oct 15, 2010
    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..............
  34. Oct 13, 2010
    OK, let me start by saying this game is not perfect and does have some problems, however, that doesn't mean this game is not good. For starters, the graphics are great in both the SP and the MP and each has its ups and downs regarding graphics (ex. SP has more realistic glare while MP has more realistic smoke effects). One thing I will say is that when going from SP to MP I noticed that the guns in SP look far more realistic and polished than in MP, but MP I generally found to have better character models though not by much. One thing to look out for is there are texture loading problems in the SP (when you jump into a new game the textures take about ten seconds to load entirely even though you are already playing) not to mention the beards everyone was waiting for don't look as good in the game and are probably the area of biggest complaint for me regarding models. On top of that, there are a few collision issues in SP (one is almost unavoidable). However, the animations are incredible (very few flaws) and the game, overall, just looks fantastic which increases the immersion in an already great environment.

    When it comes to sound, the game is also different between SP and MP and, again, each has its own strengths. Do not think that the guns sound bad in either nor do the environmental affects such as the sound of your feet, just one is a little better than the other. The soundtrack is where this game really shines and a few of the tracks (particularly at the end) are practically tear-driving they fit in so well with what these men and women go through. And if you're a Linkin Park fan, you'll be glad to know they make a couple appearances in the soundtrack. When it comes to the SP, this game takes a little getting used to. Everything is so different from the MP that even if you participated in the beta, you'll run into some issues with getting a feel for what seems like a clunky and either unresponsive or too responsive game at first, but stick with it. After the second level you should easily have gotten used to the feel and by the fourth it will just feel natural. There are some framerate issues throughout the SP that are more rampant in the first two levels than the rest of the game (though, towards the end, I noticed quite a few framerate issues as the intensity picked up). However, I will say this is not for people who want a purely action-packed experienced with an equally intense plot. The plot is more realistic and more like a documentary going from soldier to soldier and showing them working together, but there isn't much of a plot aside from trying to get established in Afghanistan (the only real "intense" moment of the plot is towards the end). The game also has moments in which confrontation is discouraged completely and you'll also find the action levels are generally slower with a few breaks on occasion to try to grasp the situation. It does feel more realistic though. It also should be noted that the SP is not tough at all (took me about 5 hours on Hard the first time through the game--though there were a couple areas where I had some definitely struggles getting past). If it isn't enough of a challenge, there is a Tier 1 Mode which is a competitive online mode tracking how good people are at the SP missions. Overall, the SP feels great and definitely captures the respect for the soldier that I was looking most forward to, as well as providing a more realistic approach to war than a lot of games are doing.

    Now, when you go to MP, the game is almost completely different. A different engine, no prone, no lean, and a completely different arsenal of weapons that look different from their SP counterparts when they are the same. The game is fast paced and team-based, though there is no VOIP which is a drawback, but TS should be able to compensate for this (did with my friends). There are bugs and glitches and the lag and hit detection can be problematic depending on the server as well as the occasional hacker (though they are few and far between depending on your server). The spawn system can also be problematic and spawn killing is REALLY easy in a couple maps, though a good team will prevent the other team from spawn killing. The pace is sort of a mix between CoD4 and BC2 so, just like so much, this game seems to be a mix between the two. Camping can be a problem, but the Skill system discourages it (though some completely ignore the Skill system) not to mention no camping spot is perfect. Scorechains are also a good deviation from killstreaks and are not overpowered or TOO problematic. In the end, I found the MP to be a good pace with some definite enjoyment as you rank up through the, albeit simplistic and small, unlock tree. So, get MoH or don't? Personally, I think the $60 was worth it, but if you're looking for a CoD or BC2 clone, you'll be disappointed. Overall, just take into consideration what has been said and make your own decision.
  35. Oct 15, 2010
    This game is brilliant. All you CoD MW fanboys just need to...go away. Go play your precious game that took the genre back YEARS to Quake III deathmatch/arena. This game, Medal of Honor, is a game of team play, brains, and skill. CoD MW/MW2 focuses on twitch play, kill streaks, and ME ME ME--which is why so many of you noobs love it. My hope is that the players that do actually like this MoH and especially combat mission will get hooked on the team style of play. RTCW: ET, Far Cry (flag capture), and ET:QW were the best team focused games up to this point. ET:QW is stil the epitomy of team effort for all maps involved, but the assault the airfield map in MoH captures that same feeling, and has better graphics, more realistic fight dynamics, and lets face it, half a million more players.

    The game installed/loaded flawlessly, looks beautiful, plays realistically (seems even moreso than AA3--sorry US Army), and is the most fun I have had in months playing a game. Point system is there for those of you that need that in your life, rank system and unlocks aren't brutal and unforgiving (I'm still not a fan of any rank system, but this is best I've seen yet). Scenery is spot on. For those reviewers that said "it is all beige"....WTF do you think Afghanistan looks like? And multiplayer maps are anything but. I can't wait until new maps that include forest/jungle come out to really shut people up. I must give another plug for the assault/defend the airfield map. That is the best multiplayer experience I have had, and I am not even in a clan and wasn't on TS or vent with anyone. I was in TAW Far Cry division for three years and it had its moments, but that map in public multiplayer was thrilling. When the Bradley had me pinned behind a concrete barrier I nearly cringed in RL. And another time in the hangar I was using pallets for cover and they shattered when a nade hit too close. Totally unexpected and awesome!
  36. Oct 20, 2010
    The singleplayer was very dissapointing, it felt more like a Mod rather than a true epic game.
    In Call of duty, the developers created a mood, in which the player actually felt like he was interacting with the storyline, MoH instead felt just dull and boring, the missions felt all alike with nothing exciting ever happening. One thing I think everybody noticed , is that the developers
    didn't bother to try something new, they didn't try at all to make it a unique game, which differentiated itself from all the other typical first person shooters. The graphics maybe are the only reason this game deserves a five. Expand
  37. Jan 6, 2011
    I would say that the latest in the Medal of Honor franchise offers quite the intriguing plot. It's not like you can have something entirely unique based on what the fps genre is offering these days, but when I bought the game I was looking for MoH to differentiate itself from the CoD - it does that very successfully (in terms of starting mission, details, environments etc.) needless to say that if you liked CoD (MF series) , you' ll definitely enjoy the new in MoH. A must have in the FPS collectors library! Expand
  38. Nov 18, 2010
    With so many FPS Games out there its hard to pick your favorites.Medal of Honor takes place in Afghanistan and gives you a variety of different missions from stealth to Helicopter pilot its hard to get bored as the missions try hard to change its focus. The night missions lack the graphics but there are not too many of those thakfully but it does give you a chance to use night vision. overall the game is solid and fun to play. may not be the best FPS But worth a rental for sure. Expand
  39. Oct 18, 2010
    The game was good but just missed great!!!The graphics were awesome, a few glitches here and there and very rarely average graphics. The story line was good but the campaign was way too short!!!Just as i became addicted it ended. It could just needed more but didnt reach its full potential. Good try though but if M.O.H wants to come close to C.O.D.M.W.2 they need to pull up their socks
  40. Oct 18, 2010
    Its hard to review this game because its really two very different games. The multiplayer game gets 10/10 for me. I tried the beta demo and was hooked- EA knew what they were doing! However, the single player is **** awful. I played 30 minutes of it and got bored. Its extremely linear and simple. Tactics aren't needed. You run to a place, see 5 Al Quada members scramble to cover- you can kill 3 of them while they're running around- and you pick of their heads in another 2 seconds. Rinse. Repeat. Its like a sub-par Playstation 2 shooter, or Time Crisis 2 (without the fun). There's no puzzles, no strategy, no novelty, it really feels like a weak shooter from 2002. For some odd reason the graphics are not as good as the multiplayer. SP graphics are a little bland. Single player feels like it only exists to give context to the multiplayer maps. SP is basically all the multiplayer maps chained together with some more streets in between and some cutscenes (the only part of SP I liked were the cutscenes).

    The multiplayer is an entirely different game. Everything about it rocks. The sound design, the graphics, the gameplay... This game is mostly about finding cover and good vantage points, killing enemies and waiting for a chance to advance. Cover fire from teamates is very valuable- and the game rewards it. Each kill gets you XP points, you get extra for headshots, savior kills, revenge kills, destroying vehicles, coordinating attacks and a few other things. XP gained with each class unlocks new weapons and weapon tweaks for that class only. You aren't allowed to choose what upgrade you can get like Battlefield games, but that doesn't bother me.

    I've only played COD for 2 minutes- I quit after a 7-year-old screamed **** at me (that sums up what I think of COD and Halo). However, I've always been a fan of Battlefield (2 and 2142, but I've never played Modern Warfare). MOH seems to improve on the class systems of the BF games- nobody is stuck being a medic (the health system is exactly like Gears of War- when you get hit you start seeing red and blood spatter on the edge of the screen. get to cover and you heal in 5 seconds or so, but it doesn't take much to kill someone). Also, nobody is forced to sit around and play commander. Scorechains give access to mortar/missile strikes and radar sweeps. I think this is how COD works too (maybe?). And permanent ammo boxes are spread around the map (for some game types).

    Its hard to think of any problems with MP. There have been some servers where you get stuck on a terrible team, and there is no team balance, but this is easily remedied (ragequit). I've only gotten about a 1/5 of the way up the weapon unlock thing, but it seems like I'll probably have everything unlocked after maybe only 20 hours of gameplay (roughly estimating). I remember unlocking weapons in BF2 or 2142 was a huge deal since it only came once in such a long time. Then again, with MOH unlocking everything is within everyone's grasp and not just for those who play 10 hours a day.

    Overall, I have to give this game a 7. A great multiplayer game alone is worth $40-45, but this game cost $60, and at 60 I expect at least a good single player experience. Rated separately, the MP is 10/10, the SP 4/10.
  41. Oct 20, 2010
    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.
  42. Oct 23, 2010
    Great game. Not anything like Call of Duty or Bad Company. If you are a person that likes to jump on a brainless game and dual wield akimbo shotguns while lunging 3 feet to knife someone this would not be the game for you. First off this game is pretty slow paced. A lot of it is revolves around teamwork and positioning. You die fairly quick and most of the time one sniper shot to the torso will kill you. So it is important not to jump out of cover and sprint to the enemies base by yourself and attack.
    People that cry about this game not being as "good" as Modern Warfare 2 or Bad Company 2 are the kind of people that like to do insanely unrealistic things. The story is really fun to play. People complain about its shortness, but CoD MW2 story is was just as short. I would recommend this game if you aren't a 12 year old running around with a 50 cal. sniper rifle screaming "NO SCOPE!!!!@#!".
  43. Oct 20, 2010
    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.
  44. Oct 30, 2010
    Still working my way through the SP so I'll hold on commenting on that apart from the fact I am really enjoying hammering around Afghanistan killing Taleban.

    I've been a little preoccupied with the MP at the moment. I cannot compare it to MW2 since I only played that for 10 seconds. However the MoH MP is really good fun. It's chaos, fast and merciless. The cramped maps just make it hard
    to camp for too long. Basically when you spawn you are 10 seconds away from firing your first shot unlike a long BC2 run back to the action. Be warned it is merciless. You'll spawn and run round a corner straight into a hail of bullets so you'll try it again and the same thing happens. At which point you decide to get that ****** so you go another way round and if you are lucky shoot him in the back of the head. Happy you have avenged yourself you then get shot in the back of the head by someone else or enjoy a RPG in the chops. Time to avenge and so it goes on and on. And that's MoH MP.

    I love it. The maps look great. The Kabul streets map is just beautiful and severe fun being able to run in and out all of the buildings, climbs to the roofs or creep down the alleys behind the buildings. The team assualt maps (team deathmatch) are square so you can always get behind the enemy as they can to you so it's chaos and fast pased as the spawns move around the map.

    The objective maps are a thing of beauty. There are 5 objectives per map you have to take in linear oder. Once you do an objective the map opens to the next stage and so it goes on until you take all 5 objectives. The key is its liners and its awesome. No running round behind these maps. You have to go straight up the middle. So this creates a bloodbath for the assualting team (on a forlorn hope charge) and a dig in for the defending team. But if the assualitng team reach the objective (blow up 'X' etc) then onwards they go to the next objective. It's just brilliant fun. The action is crazy fast paced.

    And then there's the gun sounds. Absolutely awesome in surround sound. The dying is amazing. If you have the earphones on and you get strafed the animation is realistic and the sounds of hitting the is just horrifying. Many many times I've jumped and thought damn that's harsh that's almost real.

    So I've always been a MoH fan but you cannot really compare to the past WW2 version. I don't play CoD MP so cannot help you there. So I'll just end and say this is a merciless badass 100 mile an hour MP shooter.

    And yep I've pre-ordered Black-ops also. At this moment I think the two can co-exists. I'm more interested in Black ops for the co-op.

    So that's my view. But what do I know....
  45. Nov 21, 2010
    MoH has the best sound effects I've heard in a long time. Two thumbs up on the graphics as well. The sp campaign is short, but has a lot of good action. The mp is a lot of fun, but could use more weapons to unlock.
  46. Nov 30, 2010
    This game blew me away, I do have to say the SP was way too short, but what a ride. They really show how far the frostbite engine has been developed, there were some real time cut scenes, like when the helicopter was attacked for instance, that were litteraly mind blowing. I would bet my life it was cg. great game, way too short. They could have done sooo much more! For instance, the frostbite engine is perfect for introducing all kinds of vehicals into the gameplay, all you ever control is a atv and it's just driving down a coridor... this could have been a 10 title easily, I'd be willing to bet they rushed them to make a holiday launch and they cut a lot of gameplay out. VERY eager to play the next instalment. Honestly, I LOVE call of duty, but battlefield and MOH series really give me a lot more. We're on the verger of photo-realistic games, iot's a thing of beauty. This game simply pushes us that muich closer, kinda how crisis pushed the bar up, this does the same. Expand
  47. Feb 17, 2011
    (Singleplayer) This game goes toe-to-toe with Call of Duty 4. The problem is that it's about 3 years late to the party. Good enemy AI, good friendly AI, extreme adrenaline pumping excitement. Much better than Black Ops and Battlefield: Bad Company 2. The problem is it's way too short. At 5 hours, this game literally leaves you craving for more. Still, well worth the price of admission.
  48. May 4, 2011
    What's weird is I bought and finished this game the day they got Bin Laden! Weird, I was in Afghanistan playing Tier 1 DEVGRU and Rangers right when Navy SEAL 6 was getting bin ladin! So this is kind of special! I find this game captures the feel of being an actual soldier much better than Cod4 or Bad Company 2. Although tbh it is weak single player is short and not very difficult, and multiplayer is all right but it's like a weak Bad Company/COD4. But it feels more like being in a real war, than the others, only Arma capturess what it is like to be a soldier better. I bought it because it was on sale for $15 so I think for that price I got a good deal. Expand
  49. Apr 21, 2011
    The single player campaign is over all too quickly and has a forgettable story... the multiplayer however brings some good level designs, plenty of bells and whistles graphically (thanks to the use of Frostbyte engine on multiplayer vs unreal engine for single player) although a missed opportunity not to have destructable buildings seen in the much better Bad company 2, it's better than COD black ops in most respects, has far fewer annoyances other than the usual top ranks pawning the noobs with all the unlocks... but that happens on most games. Expand
  50. May 21, 2011
    The game is just awesome. Love the single-player. The Multiplayer is closely copy from Battlefield Bad Company 2 but still very nice. The game is about realism. I hope Medal of Honor 2 (2012) will better and fixed the problems that we dont like. Thanks Danger Close & EA.
  51. Jul 20, 2011
    With an emotional singleplayer campaign and addictive multiplayer, Medal of Honor might sound good at the start, but the game is riddled with problems. In the singleplayer, the enemies are extremely dumb, and the game has too many 'Target that enemy position with your laser designator Dante!' and 'Target that enemy position with your laser designator Rabbit!' moments. I'm sure thats realistic in war nowadays, but if the game was meant to be realistic I guess pistols wouldn't have unlimited ammo and there would be no invisible walls.
    Multiplayer is fun... for a day. After you play through every map twice it simply ends up being a case of 'Oh its this map. Now, lets see, I go to this position, enemies will come through here...' etc. It doesn't bring anything new to the table but DICE did a good job with the levelling up, which makes the multiplayer slightly compelling.
  52. Aug 19, 2011
    I've never written a review for a game before, but after reading all the negative reviews I was compelled to finally do so. I found MoH to do what MW2 failed to do: provide a realistic simulation of being in combat without the sheer over-the-top feeling that left me frustrated with MW2. I can definitely understand how some of the game might not be that accessible to folks who don't have experience with the language, customs, tactics, etc... of the military; But I really appreciated that they got how Soldiers talk to each other correct, the on going struggle for air and UAV assets during a fight, and the interplay -- or lack there of -- between conventional forces and operators. Additionally, it was really interesting to see how they took real operations and built them into the game almost felt like a first person documentary (with lots of liberties for story, weapon types and uniforms) of the first phases of the Afghan war. Read up a bit on Objective Rhino, Operation Anaconda, and the Abbas Ghar ridge line, then replay the Single Player (Paying special attention to knocking out the Shepherd) On top of that, the sounds and atmospherics where spot on, and the tactical interaction between the two AFO teams and within the teams themselves were well done. Somethings that could be better though: Some of the weapons felt a little off, especially in their physics. And I thought the AI kinda sucked at times...waves and waves of dudes just kept reappearing until you hop over a specific boulder, then nothing. Seriously, when three AQ fighters get shot in the head, the response is not for the remaining two to run straight down hill at your fighting position. Plus, the AI never really maneuvered at all, just went to their wrote positions and hung out. It did seem, however, that in most cases suppressive fire actually suppressed the enemy...keep shooting at their position and their heads would stay down. I think the story could have been broadened and explained a little better, especially in giving some context to all the missions. It seems like the developers just assumed the player would get how finding Tariq in the first mission led to seizing Bagram and then the infill of 1st Bat and the 10th Mountain, and why MED birds coming from Kandahar instead of BAF is a big deal, etc...

    And as a shout out to whoever the operators were that helped build this, I definitely appreciated the running theme of 'Hey brass, how about you let the guys on the ground make the decisions...' well done.
  53. Sep 8, 2011
    Okay first thing is first, all you guys out there that immediatly go, "OMG CoD IS THE GREATEST THING TO EVER HAPPEN TO FPS GENRE EVAR!!!!!!" You are all idiots and honestly should be taken out behind the house and beaten to death with a rubber hose. Anyways. SP was amazing, I know alot of you are saying omg it so beiege and bland. Trust me, I have been to afghanistan before, its honestly an amazinng representation. ALot of brown, not alot of greenery unless your near a major river so on. I wont go into the MP as I generally suck at it and hold a bias opinion. The weapon ballistics are pretty good, though at times its a little easy to kill the AI there are an even number of times im liuke WTF where did he come from? So I feel even on normal the game can be challenging. The story was amazing, no I wasnt shooting down nukes or defending the white house from chinese or russian or who the **** ever but it was an honest portrayel of the way **** goes down over there. No endboss was great, the ending of the game literally had me in tears. This game has so much to to found, but sadly alot of it is really only seen by the military guys who have fought in afgan. Either way, this was an amazing game with solid SP, amazing graphics, and rediculously good sound, it honestly sounded like a firefight when I cranked my sound system up. I give the game a solid 9 for SP. Improvements I can foresee, is mainly a longer SP exp. perhaps bigger maps that allow for a little more tactical thought but on those mountains it really is completely linear, but they are not trying to be ARMA, so I think a little more openness and longer SP would greatly benefit the franchinse. Expand
  54. Nov 19, 2011
    This is one of the very games that made me 'feel' i was inside the game. If you are a gamer who enjoys the storyline of a game and like to work together as a team or unit, definitely go for it. However this is not as action intense as COD. But to be honest i liked this better than COD. Also, the game is short, which can leave many users disappointing. But as long as it gives that feeling that you are in the game, i would rate it high. Hope you make the right choice. Expand
  55. Nov 4, 2010
    Enjoyed it - looked great on the PC, voice acting was top notch, script was good. Really fun...then it ended. Out of nowhere, the game was over and credits rolling. Would have loved another 5-10 hours of gameplay. Can't speak for the multiplayer as I don't really do that, but the SP was great - just short.
  56. Oct 13, 2010
    Visuals and sound are pretty good, but everything else not. IGN correctly pointed that developers couldn't decide what are they doing and stick with that decision. MoH2010 is a bad mix of incompatible ideas. And that is even more correct when you realize that MoH2010 is actually two games built with different engines, content, mechanics and ideas. MP was made by DICE using Frostbite 1.5 w/o Destruction 2.0, and it's a little above average: fast, fun, small, but solid. It's playable and enjoyable. SP was made by Danger Close using UE3, and it's the bad mix I've spoken above, not to mention bugs and glitches. So, 8 for MP, 5 for SP. 6.5 average + 0.5 for good visuals/sound. Expand
  57. Oct 14, 2010
    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 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
  58. Oct 15, 2010
    This game is worth your time. It's interesting how most games cannot be released nowadays without being attacked or praised by fan boys who want to compare it to other games ad nauseum. Another interesting trend I've noticed is how the average game is unhappy with anything less than epic. Medal of Honor does not have the player fighting evil space robots trying to take over the world, but it does have an interesting story. People will argue against this last point I made saying, "I found it hard to follow. Where was the endboss?" To which I will say, "Saving your fellow soldier was the endboss. Sorry there weren't enough neon lights indicating that." I think many gamers are jaded by the idea that a single soldier, letâ Expand
  59. Oct 16, 2010
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Azután, hogy játszottam vele a nyílt beta teszten a singleplayer mód az elején nem nagyon tetszett, mert a multyplayer módhoz képest túl lassú volt a játékmenet, de a végére egész kis pörgŠExpand
  60. Feb 13, 2011
    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'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
  61. Oct 18, 2010
    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.
  62. Oct 18, 2010
    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 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 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! short avoid at all costs this game is an insult to gamers! have been warned!...
  63. Oct 19, 2010
    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.*

    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.
  64. Oct 22, 2010
    ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten ten. Expand
  65. Oct 22, 2010
    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.
  66. Jan 7, 2011
    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 them because it isn't a challenge. Expand
  67. Nov 11, 2011
    Just a throwaway FPS. Nothing special about this at all. This is a game that adds nothing to the genre. Why EA would think the world wants another knock-off military FPS, I don't know...MP was fun for about 2 hours. The SP was full of weird glitches, invincible enemies, wacko AI. Blah. It wasn't as horrible as Homefront; that's the best thing I can say about it. I'll give it a 5 because I'm feeling generous. Expand
  68. Dec 28, 2010
    Great multi-player game. Maps are extremely real. I wish there were more. Headshots kill. Guys aren't superhuman taking 30 shots before falling like some shooters. Team tactics are encouraged and rewarded. A single Radeon 5850 can give you full-detail 1080p graphics for the entire game.
    Three types of soldier to choose from. With each, you must use different tactics to get the job
    done. Single player is fun though short. I don't get the "sensitivity" critics out there. We've already seen past shooters with these very elements implemented in the games. Why pick on this one? Expand
  69. Jan 5, 2011
    If your buying this for single player save your money,but with that said Multi-player is awesome!They took what was good from bfbc2 and made MOH. Medal of Honor is a more tactical shooter than your basic run and gun shooter.Great Game!!
  70. Nov 5, 2010
    "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
  71. 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
  72. Nov 8, 2010
    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!
  73. Oct 13, 2010
    There are a lot of mixed reviews and I'm going to try and be honest here. I hate reading reviews where people are like "OMG SUCKS SO BAD." If your points aren't valid I don't think it's fair to those who worked so hard on the game.

    Given that, I think this is a solid shooter with some a couple of major overlooked issues.

    Starting with the single player. I played this in one afternoon.
    Roughly 5 hours long, I felt it was concise, action packed, but on the short side. I feel that developers feel that can get away with it. But what happened to 12 hour games? This isn't no Fallout 3 (I easily spent 60 hours on that game), but 5 hours? Eh. Despite the shortness, I really enjoyed this game.

    Graphically, this game is on par with other shooters out there, nothing new and amazing, but it looks good. There are some great parts with really impressive lighting, things blow up, fire looks decent, again, on par with other shooters but nothing crazy.

    Sound, now I'm a composer and audio engineer and I thought the sound was well done. I felt that the voice overs and communication was very authentic, explosions were huge and gunfire is rock solid. A couple of strange mix decisions (the melee sounds like your hacking into a log with a big axe, a little overkill and loud). But I love the dynamics of the gunfights because you go from in your face to absolute silent desert ambiance. Strongest suit of this game has to be the audio.

    Is this game original? Meh. I felt like I was playing MW2 again. Slow motion, kicking down doors, trekking through the snow. Little bit of driving, little bit of sniping. It's all good to me, though, it sure as hell kept me entertained. I also don't know what the hell people are talking about in relation to story. Sure, the game has no real engaging story, but I feel that this flowed way better than the story in Modern Warefare 2. That game just doesn't make any sense. This actually has a flow between missions, you're never guessing what character you are playing or what your mission is, it's very straight forward. Now onto a couple of negatives now that I dug into that...

    Video cutscenes are laaaaame. I don't understand why half of the action packed parts aren't live. Maybe it has to do with rendering, conserving disk space... I don't know. But I wish the whole thing was in-game/in-engine instead of prerendered cutscenes. Just a little detail, I know, but just an observation.

    Bugs bugs bugs. Not a whole lot but sure as hell some bugs that should have been caught by QA. "Come on, follow me this way..." as he crouches in the sand... Really? You make me restart my missions because the scripts didn't work? Terrible overlook on the scripts. Tons of them were too slow or bugged out. I'd often be so far ahead I'm waiting for the guys to come to me or I'd have to go back to trigger some sort of script. This seems to be the biggest issue with the game. It took me out of the moment a couple times, but it doesn't destroy the game or render it unplayable. It's just a little frustrating at times.

    Multiplayer... This is where feelings get hurt...

    It doesn't play well in my honest opinion. I've played the Call of Duty series since the first one and they simply have the formula down. This one doesn't work. Weapons are unbalanced. No prone makes for awkwardness. Sniping and RPGs are ridiculous. The maps are teeny tiny and are not designed well. Camping galore. And spawn camping and spawn kills are also insanely stupid. And the matches seem way too short and are not as team based as they make it out to be. Honestly, skip the multiplayer. I never played BC2. So I can't compare. All I can say is I have much more fun playing MW2 than this multiplayer. Simply because it feels more balanced (minus n00b tubes and knives). There is more to choose from, and it is feature rich. YES, MW2 is more arcadey but for someone like me, I'm not looking for an ultrarealistic game. If that's what you want, neither MoH nor CoD truely offer that. The MP component on this game is dry and feels unfinished, it's really hard to explain.

    All in all. This is a renter or borrow from a friend or buy used later... You can beat the game in one day, and skip the multiplayer. Is it a terrible game? No, this is a solid game and the guys at Danger Close did a great job. Could this have been better? Oh man, my expectations were high and this game baaaarely came close. Just barely. That's why I give it a 7.
  74. Oct 27, 2010
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Medal Of Honor was good before ... but now the game is a joke... seriously if u want to pay 65$ for a game whos long about 15hours++ do not buy this... the Singleplayer is really short maybe 3-4 hours max the action is good yes but the missions are so short... and im not talking about all the bug ingame... The Multiplayer is really terrible again we have killstreak who actually kill the game getting killed by a random rocket from the sky is not funny the maps are small and there is like 15 weapons... dont buy this game Expand
  75. Oct 16, 2010
    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
  76. Nov 4, 2010
    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.
  77. Dec 16, 2010
    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
  78. Dec 26, 2010
    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.
  79. Dec 30, 2010
    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...
  80. Nov 27, 2011
    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 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
  81. Jan 29, 2011
    Great game..IMO its better then black ops. takes skill to achieve "killstreaks" and kills in general, speaking of the killstreaks they are not over powered in anyway. not dumb ass chopper hangin around for a minute mowing everyone down... very realistic, graphics are amazing awesome explosions.great voice acting. recommended over lag ops any day!
  82. Mar 13, 2011
    Just played the single player mode, and the multiplayer and was both equally impressed. The visuals are absolutely fantastic and the gameplay on single player is full of suspense. The multiplayer is very action packed and you always have to be on your toes! I wouldn't compare it to Call of Duty because it's a totally different game in itself, and isn't stressful to play. Great game and worth it for the price honestly. Expand
  83. May 13, 2011
    I loved the game, not gonna lie. The story line was vastly better than CODs. I actually felt a bit of sadness when rabbit died. It was nice that i got to play different scenieros. Interesting storyline...almost movie-esiq.
    I love how it doesnt glorify shows it how war should be seen, as hell a living hell. I don't care if i get boo'd for this but war isn't as cracked up as it
    should be. Being a Iraq vet, i really liked this game. Expand
  84. May 24, 2011
    Good enough on the first playthough - visuals average, storyline ok (seemed not to bad in terms of realism), but it was way too short. I'm not a great player, but even I finished it in about 4 hours. I don't play multiplayer and the "tier 1" thing is a joke. Considering the amount of money I paid for this game, it is not worth paying full price for. I could have watched 6 movies for the same price and had 9-12 hours (more than twice as much) worth of entertainment with a heck of a lot more diversity. When it comes to gaming and watching movies, the economics should be the other way round. Expand
  85. Sep 8, 2011
    I prefer this experience over COD really. Sometimes with COD, you watch. Short but more engaging. Like a good book, if you wished it was longer, it must be real goo. Real short though.
  86. Nov 10, 2011
    the best online and single player game, engine shows his ability's, and some time it's looks very pretty, any way graphic is good for today. Multiplayer - is something between MW2 and BC2, but it's not as good as both. So if you like MW2 or BC2 you should go on playing it, reason to try MOH multiplayer is only if you didn't find what you want in one of them
  87. Nov 26, 2011
    Medal of Honor's multiplayer is nothing short of awesome. I'm blown away and love it. I'm a big Battlefield fan and enjoy Call of Duty for the simple feel of it. Jump in and simply shoot and throw grenades. EA's title's arent quiet the same. Follow the Call of Duty way of playing and you'll either give up or simply die an awful lot. You need to play smart and be aware of your surroundings. Read the full review @ Expand
  88. Jun 29, 2012
    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
  89. Feb 8, 2013
    For those who have tired of CoD's repetitive gameplay where all you do is rush and die, then reload and repeat that, this is an awesome game, it does however have one major failing.. campaign mode is about 50% the length it should be.

    Graphically theres no complaints, although you can sometimes tell they wanted it to work on console too.

    Overall though.. Hiighly recommended change
    from the norm. The first game i've played right through in one sitting in a long time, and its kickstarted my PC gaming again I think, I'd forgotten just how much better the PC is to the consoles. Expand
  90. Oct 19, 2010
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. SP took me about 3 hours on normal...guess i know why people are saying it's too short...that and the ending isn't really spectacular, but it's legit as in - it f-ing happens in the real world. I have to say I did enjoy the SP, you're not Rambo, just a US soldier kickin some a$$ take on roles as both Tier1 seals and Army Rangers and between them and the support they have at their disposal, you get a really cool feeling for the actual fighting going plenty of the gaming bits you need. As far as playing goes, the SP graphics are nothing spectacular (just thought i'd get that out of the way, I am a graphics guy and UE3 is oldschool...hard for me to LOVE it), and you occasionally get stuck on something or have to restart the mission because of some glitch, but shooting bad guys in this game is really fun. they change it up a little bit from the usual "you run in there and shoot 80000 bad guys while i stand here and pick my nose for a while" haha. I'd rate the SP a 7/10...1 point off for graphics and 2 points off for shortness and mild glitches.

    Played a few hours of MP and hardcore mode is F-ING HARD (which is awesome...aggravating at times, but very refreshing). I hate the MW2 killstreaks with the gunners and stuff, and these score-chain rewards are much simpler and less distracting from the gameplay.

    lack of realistic recoil is not an issue due to the small "hit-box" sizes...and there is recoil, it's just not massive. problems with it: no polish (not on same "polished" level as currentBC2(not on launch lol) or COD4), no mod-tools, no prone/lean/strafe-sprint (like BC2). overall, i had tons of fun with it tonight, had a 45ish-25ish round at the top of my team lol...that was pretty crazy. gameplay is INTENSE and i thought it was awesome. MP gameplay - 8/10.... TOTAL MoH rating from me: 7.5/10 (i'll mark 8 to offset the "low offsetters" that think they have to lie about what they're actually rating it instead of just putting their points where they belong.)
  91. Oct 15, 2010
    HI am a hard core gamers (R(+)cKeT) hi play so many games in the pass years Medal of Honor 2010 is not the best moh hi see dose pass years!!!MOH allied assault is the best moh whit score 9.1 hi ill never see MOH like pass years , EA make copy of COD 6 , EA dont have inspiration too make a very good games they make this games for $$$ , the story in this games about the same think of COD 6""""""" hi give 7 score for good graphic games ,,,

    hi ill never buy this games for prices is about 59.99 $ CAN money !!!
  92. Dec 8, 2010
    This latest instalment in the Medal of Honour series almost seems like it is a showcase of Electronics Artâ
  93. Nov 12, 2010
    Overall Medal of Honor is a decent reboot of the long standing franchise. The single player campaign while extremely short is paced well and offers a decent amount of variety. The squad AI does a great job of making you feel like they are contributing in a meaningful way to the battle. Often they'll offer up verbal clues as to where you can find enemies which defiantly helps with the immersion making you actually feel like you're a part of a top notch special forces team. Visually the game does a good job offering up a decent amount of variety from snowy mountain ranges to dust parched wastelands and devastated urban environments.
    The problem with the game is the lack-luster multiplayer component. Unfortunately there just isn't enough variety and ends up coming across as quite plain. In the end its hard for me to justify the purchase of the game because of the short single player experience and the vanilla multiplayer offering.
    While a fun time it mostly feels like an appetizer when you should be getting an entree for the 60$ admission fee.
  94. Nov 7, 2010
    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
  95. Dec 5, 2010
    An obvious ripoff of Modern Warfare. Don't get me wrong, I'm no CoD fanboy at all, but I know a fake when I see one. The singleplayer is fun at some points, dull at others, and very short. It has a lot of cheap drama and it fails to capture any emotion. The multiplayer is good, but why play a game made similar and by the same creators as BFBC2 when you could just play BFBC2? It's a good fps, but there are better ones out there. This game was made to take advantage of the market CoD created. Expand
  96. Dec 2, 2010
    The single player for me was a huge disappointment. The story and feel just didn't grab me, didn't even feel inclined to finish it. The multiplayer on the other hand is terrific. Such a breath of fresh air...the feel is just completely different and particularly the combat mission maps are epic.

    If your main reason for buying this is for the single player, don't bother. On the other hand,
    the multiplayer will give you hours of fun if you're sick and tired of COD like i am. Expand
  97. Jan 2, 2011
    Medal of Honor is certainly a great FPS game. It's campaign, although short, is exciting and makes you feel like in Afghanistan, with modern weaponry and immersive music and scenarios. The graphics are not the best, but won't let you down. The multiplayer is well built, with various gaming modes and ranking system, but is quite disappointing when it comes to weapon customization, there aren't many unlockable weapons nor accessories, so you won't be surprised with what kills you during a battle. It does not stay much behind CoD, and it's a great comeback for a franchise that popularized the FPS genre. Expand
  98. SFN
    Apr 7, 2011
    ok the good things about this game, the campaign is amazing, the graphics are good at best and it pays tribute to the troops fighting fro us right now, the bad, the multiplayer sucks, i thought it was gonna be the same as battlefield but better but sadly it wasnt, you can be sniped from across the map and have no idea where it came from, they dont tell you or even give you a hint where their at and its really annoying, DICE better do better than this in battlefield 3 Expand
  99. Apr 29, 2011
    Despite the appalling lack of a "U", and an admittedly somewhat linear game-play, I actually enjoyed this thoroughly. I normally do not like linear, preferring the sandbox end of the spectrum, but in truth it doesn't feel quite so linear and fixed. There is some room for ingenuity, even if shooting that guy does turn into a firefight with twelve guys, you can live through that. I respect games that have thought this through. (Or maybe Homefront really has scarred me for life.) Perhaps it was the EXCELLENT storyline, which was both exciting and varied, or perhaps the ... look, it FELT real, it felt desperate, it felt... I felt that cold, every bump in that road... There was FAR more realism in this than anything CoD I have played. And THAT this came from the normally woeful EA is all the more astounding. Expand
  100. Mar 30, 2012
    Now that the price has gone down, this game is worth a try.

    The Single-Player is well made and fun to play through, but unfortunately way shorter than it should have been. Which is a shame, because the game is seriously stunning while it lasts. Just over a year later, the Multiplayer's been fixed up for the most part, and is still moderately active.

    If you've got a spare $20, this game
    is definitely worth a try. Expand
  101. Oct 12, 2010
    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 $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.

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
    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
    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. 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]