Medal of Honor PC

User Score
6.4

Mixed or average reviews- based on 491 Ratings

User score distribution:
Buy On

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 4, 2010
    7
    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.
  2. Oct 13, 2010
    7
    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 1.5Visuals 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
  3. Oct 18, 2010
    7
    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 canIts 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.
    Expand
  4. Oct 13, 2010
    7
    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.
    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.
    Expand
  5. Dec 8, 2010
    7
    This latest instalment in the Medal of Honour series almost seems like it is a showcase of Electronics Artâ
  6. Nov 12, 2010
    7
    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 theOverall 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.
    Expand
  7. Dec 5, 2010
    7
    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 goodAn 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
  8. SFN
    Apr 7, 2011
    7
    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 whereok 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
  9. Apr 29, 2011
    7
    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 respectDespite 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
  10. Aug 23, 2014
    7
    This game is not as bad as critics say. It's better than I thought it would be. The singleplayer story isn't full of twists and turns, it's more like a tribute to US and NATO troops. Keep it mind as you play the story, many of what you see is happening right now in Afghanistan, especially when you switch to play as a Ranger (most of the time you play as a Navy SEAL). You could feel asThis game is not as bad as critics say. It's better than I thought it would be. The singleplayer story isn't full of twists and turns, it's more like a tribute to US and NATO troops. Keep it mind as you play the story, many of what you see is happening right now in Afghanistan, especially when you switch to play as a Ranger (most of the time you play as a Navy SEAL). You could feel as though you were there. For that, the singleplayer was great. My gripe about it is that it can be finished in 6 hours. And I was playing on the hardest difficulty. Was the game that easy, or is it that I'm good at first-person shooters? The multiplayer, well, that's a different story. I don't know how it has been in the past, but right now, I don't like it. You frequently get spawn-killed and everyone seems to spam grenade and rocket launchers. Some say, it's a combination of Call of Duty and Battlefield. From what I played, I still haven't decided if that's a good or bad thing.

    In the end, where CoD and Battlefield excels in multiplayer, MoH excels in singleplayer. Having been a fan of MoH since 2002, I don't think MoH was meant for MP. Back when the game first came out, I would definitely recommend a rental for the singleplayer. Now that the game is cheap, it's worth buying, so you can check the multiplayer and judge for yourself, but, as I've said, MoH was always a SP game. One day, I'll check on MoH:Warfighter, and see how that game was so bad, EA is putting the series on hold.
    Expand
  11. Jul 20, 2011
    7
    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 thatsWith 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.
    Expand
  12. Jun 4, 2012
    7
    I was surprised by this game. First, the previews made it sound awesome, then initial reviews were terrible, then once people got over the price-shock, reviews started to improve. I picked this game up for $5, and didn't expect much, but I genuinely enjoyed it. The graphics are not the best (definitely not horrible though), and there were a few missions that absolutely pissed me off (oneI was surprised by this game. First, the previews made it sound awesome, then initial reviews were terrible, then once people got over the price-shock, reviews started to improve. I picked this game up for $5, and didn't expect much, but I genuinely enjoyed it. The graphics are not the best (definitely not horrible though), and there were a few missions that absolutely pissed me off (one of the stealth missions), but once I decided to screw it and just kill everyone, it stopped being annoying. The campaign was fairly short (decent length for a shooter), but it was well done. This is definitely a story-driven FPS, and it pulls it off well. The ending was actually quite touching, and I absolutely loved how they dedicated the game to all the unsung heroes laying their lives on the line every day. Now that it's no longer $60, I recommend picking up a copy if you like shooters. I enjoyed it. Never tried multiplayer, but I hate the latest blend of kill-streak competitive multiplayer shooters anyway, so meh. Expand
  13. May 29, 2015
    7
    The game delivered. Had massive fun with it in my younger days. It filled its own niche and was a relaxing break from the cod franchise. Good times, good times.
  14. Mar 7, 2012
    7
    I do not know what the hell people are talking about trying to say this is a ''Mimic of Modern Warfare 2'' This guy is stupid, i hope he knew Call of Duty existed WAY after Medal of Honor was created... This game is entirely based on a Real Military Operation. The characters names are real, this is not a crappy game contredicting shooter originality (War) Games. It's been a very awesomeI do not know what the hell people are talking about trying to say this is a ''Mimic of Modern Warfare 2'' This guy is stupid, i hope he knew Call of Duty existed WAY after Medal of Honor was created... This game is entirely based on a Real Military Operation. The characters names are real, this is not a crappy game contredicting shooter originality (War) Games. It's been a very awesome campaign. The developpers are actually going for Realism, since the first MOH. This game will keep being true stories forever. This is their goal. The action is bad? No. The action is Real. Call of duty is not real. Tired of hearing little stupid kids that doesn't know what is real war commenting that kind of thing. I am in the army and wait till you shoot a real guy in real life. Stop being stupid. Let's get back to the game content now, very good story (Real story). The gun sound are realistic for the most part. The music is beautiful (Heroes Abroad) Atleast. I think this is a great game, and cannot wait to play Medal of Honor: Warfighter. This game gets a 7/10 from me because of the realism, the emotion you get when playing the game, and also the campaign. Multiplayer has been terribad though. But this game wasn't goaled to be a good Multiplayer game. Go play Battlefield if it is what you want. Expand
  15. Aug 6, 2012
    7
    I bought this solely for the single-player campaign and was not disappointed. The gameplay is much like the Modern Warfare games: heavily scripted with few tactical options and the usual assortment of spec forces weapons. What I really enjoyed, however, was the story and characters. Unlike COD, there aren't any massive invasions, nuclear weapons, or evil masterminds, and while the mainI bought this solely for the single-player campaign and was not disappointed. The gameplay is much like the Modern Warfare games: heavily scripted with few tactical options and the usual assortment of spec forces weapons. What I really enjoyed, however, was the story and characters. Unlike COD, there aren't any massive invasions, nuclear weapons, or evil masterminds, and while the main characters are obviously elite, they are just men--no superheros. I found it refreshing to play a game with believable scenarios where doing important stuff doesn't mean saving the world for the fourth time. I would have really liked it if this game had additional single-player content (bonus missions, survival mode, etc.) but since I only paid $5 for it on Steam, I suppose I can't complain. Expand
  16. Nov 14, 2012
    7
    When it comes to graphics and artwork it looks amazing. But getting down to the core experience of the game it lacked a little. The campaign has it's fair share of surprises but is brought back down to earth when it becomes a little repetitive. Definitely a big improvement from danger closes first game back in 2010. When it comes to multiplayer the maps seem to be unbalanced but thatWhen it comes to graphics and artwork it looks amazing. But getting down to the core experience of the game it lacked a little. The campaign has it's fair share of surprises but is brought back down to earth when it becomes a little repetitive. Definitely a big improvement from danger closes first game back in 2010. When it comes to multiplayer the maps seem to be unbalanced but that can change depending on how well you work with your squad mates. Overall this game has action and a strong competitive nature that will keep you coming back for more. So grab a few buddies and maybe a couple beers and dive into the action! Expand
  17. Apr 3, 2013
    7
    As a gaming Vet if you say Medal of Honor i think Awesome single player war game this is a mix match of good single and multiplayer warfare and i enjoy it but think they are losing the plot when it comes to MoH games.
  18. Aug 17, 2013
    7
    Yes its a CoD copy with a much better sound engine/shooter mechanics but with weak character development (i think im pointing this in every game i played recently...) and plot. A lot of AI malfunction and gamebreaking moments but Fun to play, i d give a 6 if it wasnt for the amazing sound engine.
  19. sft
    Jul 12, 2015
    7
    An honorable effort

    I only own this game because it came as part of a bundle, and it's not something I would normally play (as a rule I prefer to battle zombies, mutants, and aliens). I was, however, pleasantly surprised by MEDAL OF HONOR. It's a good solid shooter with nice graphics and a realistic atmosphere. The combat is satisfying and reasonably challenging, and it doesn't hold the
    An honorable effort

    I only own this game because it came as part of a bundle, and it's not something I would normally play (as a rule I prefer to battle zombies, mutants, and aliens). I was, however, pleasantly surprised by MEDAL OF HONOR. It's a good solid shooter with nice graphics and a realistic atmosphere. The combat is satisfying and reasonably challenging, and it doesn't hold the players hand as much as some games. The single player campaign is, however, very short, at around 6 hours of play, but as I got it pretty much for free I can't complain about that. I can't comment on the multiplayer mode because I haven't played it but the single player part is fun just as long as you don't expect too many hours gameplay from it.
    Expand
  20. Oct 31, 2013
    7
    I encourage anyone reading these reviews not to be detoured from this game. There are a lot of COD fanyboys out there but if you are like me and enjoy a variety of FPS games then check this one out. Saying that though i have to suggest not to pay over 5 dollars because of how short it is and the lack of character development. That aside the graphics are decent even by today's standards theI encourage anyone reading these reviews not to be detoured from this game. There are a lot of COD fanyboys out there but if you are like me and enjoy a variety of FPS games then check this one out. Saying that though i have to suggest not to pay over 5 dollars because of how short it is and the lack of character development. That aside the graphics are decent even by today's standards the shooting mechanics are good and the sound design is great. This game goes for realism in a respectful way for our armed forces (they even pay homage to them at the end) the if you are a more mature person you will get the story and will feel for the characters. Expand
  21. Nov 14, 2013
    7
    Graphics: The graphics aren’t the best I’ve seen, but they still look pretty damn good. 9.
    Sound: Nice soundtrack, good voice acting, the games guns sounds are okay not the best, and there’s minor grenade explosions, and other destruction sounds that aren’t realistic. 8.5.
    Gameplay: The game is an fps that may seem like a watered down version of Call of Duty, but it can actually
    Graphics: The graphics aren’t the best I’ve seen, but they still look pretty damn good. 9.
    Sound: Nice soundtrack, good voice acting, the games guns sounds are okay not the best, and there’s minor grenade explosions, and other destruction sounds that aren’t realistic. 8.5.
    Gameplay: The game is an fps that may seem like a watered down version of Call of Duty, but it can actually hold its own ground. There’s a great mix up of gameplay from linear shoot em up type missions, to stealth missions, vehicle driving, and on rails helicopter battles. Some guns feel unrealistic, while some are good. It has the typical controls you’d expect from an FPS, it isn’t the greatest fps, but it is still worth a playthrough (sp). The multiplayer is fun but this is where the watered down version kicks in. Supposedly it’s done by DICE yet it doesn’t feel as good as their battlefield series. There aren’t any destructible environments, and it feels like an old days FPS shooter. It is still fun, but there are so many other options out that one may look the other way for Medal of Honor. 8.
    Story: The story is okay, it’s based on real life undercover military that are hidden away watching Taliban activity. You’ll find yourself slowly boring away, but some characters can be memorable but they are easily forgotten. The game tries to create sad moments but never really impacts the player. A lesson may need to be learned from Call of Duty when it comes to impact/controversy. 6.5.
    Lasting Appeal: The games singleplayer is very short, you can beat it in 2 sittings if you went all out. There is multiplayer but it isn’t the best. I can recommend this game but there are better options out there. 7.
    Overall Score: 7.8 out of 10.
    Expand
  22. Jan 22, 2014
    7
    now first if you looking for a badass single-player Campaign than this game is not for you, the Campaign is poor and not very fun, however if you look for good multiplayer well you may found it here....many will not like and even hate this game multiplayer, but if you play you very easly see what the game try to do, a realistic FPS who try to be like cod but failed, but with the realisim inow first if you looking for a badass single-player Campaign than this game is not for you, the Campaign is poor and not very fun, however if you look for good multiplayer well you may found it here....many will not like and even hate this game multiplayer, but if you play you very easly see what the game try to do, a realistic FPS who try to be like cod but failed, but with the realisim i know there are alot of gamers who will love this game, so if you like realistic FPS, and like cod more or less, then you going to love this game. Expand
  23. Oct 25, 2010
    6
    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
    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.
    Expand
  24. Oct 12, 2010
    6
    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. ...
  25. Oct 27, 2010
    6
    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
  26. Nov 22, 2010
    6
    Single player runs on a old game engine while the multi player doesn't. Graphics of the Single player are average. For a game of 2010 it really lacks of Physics. Single player is great but way to short. Reason for that is that the American army didn't want you to be able to play a Al-Qaeda terrorist so they dropt that part of the game completely. This game is marketed as the best shooterSingle player runs on a old game engine while the multi player doesn't. Graphics of the Single player are average. For a game of 2010 it really lacks of Physics. Single player is great but way to short. Reason for that is that the American army didn't want you to be able to play a Al-Qaeda terrorist so they dropt that part of the game completely. This game is marketed as the best shooter but that does raise the bar quite a bit to high for 'just another sequel'. So the disappointment can be quite big for multiple reasons.
    But the game doesn't do much wrong compared to its predecessors either. My personal critic of this game and many similar shooters is that you are saddled with stupid team mates that ad nothing to the game and you can not complete the mission your way. For example you can't go stealthy or take a another way, its just way to linear, just checkpoint to checkpoint. (Stupid) game developers call it the Hollywood experience. The single player is better than Battlefield: Bad Company 2 but EA shouldn't have forced to bring this game so soon to the market just to be earlier than Call of Duty Black ops.
    Expand
  27. Feb 17, 2013
    6
    Game style like Call Of Duty Modern Warfare or Battlefield 3, but never to live up to these. The story is weak and it feels incomplete without a clear purpose. The gameplay is pretty good, but neither is at the level of its competitors.

    Only recommended if you get it at a low price and if you have played the games mentioned above.
  28. Jun 2, 2012
    6
    This game have too much bad reviews then it deserve. It's multiplayer is not close to BF awesomeness, but not bad as COD also. Some unbalanced things in game give space to some players to abuse that which sometimes ruin game to players which expect variety. Until end of the year new MOH is announced. They have only few things to make better and this game have potential to become score 10!
  29. Oct 21, 2012
    6
    This is one of the worst ports I have ever played. There are no AA settings and the FOV is very poor. This is one of the shortest fps games I have ever played @ about 5hrs. With that said the action is past paced and fun. People talk about MoH as being realistic, but it's not. This is more of an arcade shooter. The on bright spot in this game is the audio for people Sound BlasterThis is one of the worst ports I have ever played. There are no AA settings and the FOV is very poor. This is one of the shortest fps games I have ever played @ about 5hrs. With that said the action is past paced and fun. People talk about MoH as being realistic, but it's not. This is more of an arcade shooter. The on bright spot in this game is the audio for people Sound Blaster Titanium HD sound cards. When you configure your sound in Windows to output 5.1 channels, set MoH sound to Theater, turn on CMSS-3d in sound card settings and use headphones (LOL) you get really good audio. Expand
  30. Sep 13, 2013
    6
    A solid modern shooter that does the basics well with strong graphics, sound and gameplay mechanics. But it really brings nothing new or overly interesting to the genre. Very linear and predictable makes this game quite boring at times.

    Worth a look if a fan of modern shooters but nothing extraordinary to see here.
  31. May 25, 2013
    6
    **SP ONLY**
    I kinda actually like this game, even though i will not give it higher than 6/10 The first thing is like is that this game differentiates itself from its cousins (CoD and BFs) by being very focused on the US special forces Seals and Rangers to be specific. It was interesting to follow the operatives story and see how it plays out. The pacing itself is better than CoD (ie its
    **SP ONLY**
    I kinda actually like this game, even though i will not give it higher than 6/10 The first thing is like is that this game differentiates itself from its cousins (CoD and BFs) by being very focused on the US special forces Seals and Rangers to be specific. It was interesting to follow the operatives story and see how it plays out. The pacing itself is better than CoD (ie its not over the top action set pieces all the time)

    That being said, there is nothing new in this game. The gunplay is solid but nothing new, the story needed something more to be able to stand out and the linearity gets annoying sometimes.

    Final verdict, Its NOT BAD but its JUST OK. Get it on a sale if you like such Modern Military Shooters.
    Expand
  32. Jul 2, 2014
    6
    Medal of Honour Airbourne shook my heart, and I cried a little at the end. This Medal of Honor, yes I was emotional a little at the end. You feel, 'Oh no, do the armed forces and the honest Afganistan folk have to go through this'.

    It had the odd error and unclear direction: An objective did not trigger in one place for me, and was stuck facing infinite foes until I run out of ammo.
    Medal of Honour Airbourne shook my heart, and I cried a little at the end. This Medal of Honor, yes I was emotional a little at the end. You feel, 'Oh no, do the armed forces and the honest Afganistan folk have to go through this'.

    It had the odd error and unclear direction:

    An objective did not trigger in one place for me, and was stuck facing infinite foes until I run out of ammo. Ah maybe it was me, I'll reload the checkpoint. Same again. Gone through 500 rounds in a rifle that fires single shots, emptied my automatic rifle, and using pistol (that has infinite ammo.) Usually you press F next to a team-mate to get ammo, but in this scenario, they say you have plenty. Even though I am out.

    Anyway I restarted the mission and I was OK. It played out that time as it should.

    Helicopter work. Where in the controls does it say how to fire Hellfire missiles. IT DOESN'T. I had to google for it, after repeating stuff over and over. Next time I noticed there was a quick message flashed up on the screen with instruction how to use. I didn't see it before because I was fighting. Plus I was too busy concentrating on the ENDLESS CHATTER OVER THE RADIO.

    The squelshy squaly endless rubbish banging on over the radio. It talks to you through about 2/5 of the game.

    The graphics and scenery are awesome in places. It opens nicely, and the closing scenes in the mountains and snow are beautiful.
    Expand
  33. Oct 12, 2013
    6
    useless AI but good story. enjoy if u wanna look at the story. it can be better if them make a good AI NOTTTT!! useless skill.
    -im boring when shoot them all and problum bug sometime.
  34. Oct 15, 2010
    5
    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 andThe 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
  35. Feb 25, 2012
    5
    well,nothing special about this game.....MOH said a true realistic-shooter game but they give us a copy-paste COD game.Multiplayer is damn good to play but single player is full of glitches and POP-UP textures.The single player story is damn forgettable and the AI is weird.....save your money on another game instead.
  36. Oct 15, 2010
    5
    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 $$$ , the story in this games about the same think of CODHI am a hard core gamers (R(+)cKeT) hi play so many games in the pass years Medal of Honor 2010 is not the best moh hi see dose pass years!!!MOH allied assault is the best moh whit score 9.1 hi ill never see MOH like pass years , EA make copy of COD 6 , EA dont have inspiration too make a very good games they make this games for $$$ , 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 !!!
    Expand
  37. Oct 20, 2010
    5
    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
    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
  38. Nov 11, 2011
    5
    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 becauseJust 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
  39. May 5, 2011
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. finished this game the day seal team 6 killed obama ironically in about 6 hours (really short game and ending is like what?) it was a magical moment that felt like i was virtually helping in the fight from my home computer as news of bin ladens death came across t.v.. this game brought a real navy seal feel to the big gun fights and ending does have the final mission with 2 seals. it is a fun single/campaign that does totally immerse you into what it is like being in pakistan (where the real terrorist live-not afghanistan like pakistan wanted us to believe) fighting bin laden look alikes never gets old in this game and killing the pakistanis is a lot of fun and worth the 30 bucks to play for the good sound and great graphics. do not even think about mp it has like 30 players total-this is the worst multiplayer game ever played and i been playing for a long time. hit detect is awful, bullets from some guns do no damage, while you die fast from others (hackers i assume but cant tell because no killcam=fail. Expand
  40. May 17, 2011
    5
    I am sorry, but bad games are bad. And this is a good example of one. The single player is decent and the graphics are good, but the multiplayer is nothing short of broken. Take bad company 2, cut the maps into about 1/10 the size and make the prone option still unavailable. Now drop the power on the guns, remove the destructible buildings, and keep the tanks overpowered. Any fun thatI am sorry, but bad games are bad. And this is a good example of one. The single player is decent and the graphics are good, but the multiplayer is nothing short of broken. Take bad company 2, cut the maps into about 1/10 the size and make the prone option still unavailable. Now drop the power on the guns, remove the destructible buildings, and keep the tanks overpowered. Any fun that was included in bad company, has been dropped in this game. Expand
  41. May 24, 2011
    5
    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 theGood 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
  42. Aug 13, 2015
    5
    Fun enough in its own way but nothing like the triumph that was the original and nothing like it could be given that this is over a decade later. My main issue is that this is the dictionary definition of linear, where deviating even a fraction from the often dull script set out leads to instant death, reflecting lazy design.
  43. Sep 14, 2013
    5
    It was supposed to be the game that would break Activision's CoD empire, it was supposed to be the game that would reestablish the once great Meda of Honor name. Now, it's a game that will no-one remember and the game that fell short in every aspect it could have.

    The story of MoH itself is uninteresting, undercooked and short. The game can be finished in a mere 5 hours on normal
    It was supposed to be the game that would break Activision's CoD empire, it was supposed to be the game that would reestablish the once great Meda of Honor name. Now, it's a game that will no-one remember and the game that fell short in every aspect it could have.

    The story of MoH itself is uninteresting, undercooked and short. The game can be finished in a mere 5 hours on normal settings, without any, and I mean ANY replay value. There aren't any collectibles, multiple paths or story elements that would encourage the player to start the game all over again. Once you have finished it semi-frustrated there is no going back to it. Frustration is a concept that will many of us have to face in MoH. The super-linear nature of the discourages any way of alternate pathfinding. To put it simple, if you don't do what the game says you to do, you're dead. Don't try to be a hero, as you always have to follow instructions to survive. If you are told to hold position, don't try to peek above the wall, because you are getting shot. If you are told to run or retreat don't try to stay and hold off the enemy as they will kill you...sometimes even behind cover.

    Not is all bad about the game however. Two things stand out the most. The graphics are beautiful even on medium settings. Water, rocks, buildings and shadows look astonishing. The other thing where you have to give credit to the creators is trying to maintain authenticity. Places, soldiers, the way they talk to each other, situations all feel real to a person who is inexperienced in war situations. The game itself takes place in Afghanistan and it's plot is loosely based on the Operation Anaconda where US soldiers tried to destroy Taliban forces back in '02.

    I can honestly say that I haven't seen a game that would want YOU to rush through it's single player mode. This game does. For one thing its ultra short. Experienced player can finish it in 4 to 5 hours easily, and checkpoints are so frequent that even if you happen to die, you won't be set back for more than 2 minutes of your progress. Literally, a level starts with an in-game cinematic and a shepherd is taken down silently by your fellow soldier, and boom checkpoint. Sometimes it feels like the game throws you a CP every time you reload you weapon. The level design is also horrible, excluding the first few stages, on all of the levels there is 1 hard point where you are so overwhelmed that you will die 3-10 times in 5 minutes. Up until that point and even after that there is little to no resistance. To put it gently, it's unbalanced.

    When you get frustrated (and you'll get) by the SP you can try the Tier1 mode, which is unlocked once you've completed the SP on any difficulty. Basically, Tier1 is the same as the SP just with some gameplay tweaks, e.g. difficulty is set to hard and you have no restarts. Once you die, you have to start over again. There is a time limit in each level that you have to beat, and headshots will freeze the timer for a couple of seconds. To conserve time there aren't any cutscenes either. This mode really is for hardcore MoH players and I doubt that any of the one-timers will enjoy it.

    And finally there is MP. Crafted from scratch with Frostbite it's completely a different game. This is the best part of the game hands down. You can choose a class with different set of weapons and level yourself up the get better in hunting down the opposition. You can engage in different type of game modes like: Team Assault (deathmatch), Sector Control (capture the flag), Clean Sweep (deathmatch without respawns) or Objective Raid (attack or defend certain assets) among others. It doesn't introduce anything new, but at least what it does, it does very well. No question that if you are an experienced FPS player you should skip the SP in its entirety and go straight to the MP to have some fun.

    Rating: 55/100; Replay Value: 1/5; To Beat: 5 hours; Played on: normal.
    Expand
  44. Mar 29, 2014
    5
    "Bullets or broken legs" - Mother

    The whole game took me about 5 hours on the hardest difficulty and that is the only sentence I can remind myself after playing it through. The game has kept the level of the game Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare (2007). With level I mean graphics. No innovation, I would barely even say it has the same engine, but it would be too offensive, because Dice and
    "Bullets or broken legs" - Mother

    The whole game took me about 5 hours on the hardest difficulty and that is the only sentence I can remind myself after playing it through. The game has kept the level of the game Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare (2007). With level I mean graphics. No innovation, I would barely even say it has the same engine, but it would be too offensive, because Dice and Activision have a market fight on sells.

    Once more you have to kill people. Alrighty then. I like shooter games, but people there is no story. You are being dropped somewhere in Afghanistan and have there some operations without any pre-story. It can maitanly be linked to the current Terrorism searching operations... but it was boring. The story was boring. One operation was nice, the quad mission. The others are go there, kill 200 taliban, go somewhere else, let a comrade pick you up so you can play the script further, kill again 200 talibans. Go to spot C, seed a plant of weed, run back to B. Kill again 200 talibans... pretty repetitive.

    Like all games of that kind it has the same problems too. Invincible walls, stupid AI. The snow there looks like an unmoded (without hd textures) Skyrim. You leave no footsteps in the snow... The game is pretty easy. I feeled like I was playing a port from a current console. The game is telling me where to go pushing H, where the enemy hides after I have not found them and of course begging your comrades for bullets. That seems... -> "if the game is too hard for you, please push button f12, DICE will gonna help you".

    That was pretty much critics at all. To speak about some positive aspects the game has an awsome music/sound overlay. I played the game using a 5.1 supporting Headphones and I feeled hilarious! Awsome soundtrack, yummy!

    To sum up:
    - graphic = nothing new since 2007 => 5
    - gameplay = repetitive, boring, no plot => 2
    - sound = hilarious! => 9+

    Total: 5+/10
    Expand
  45. May 17, 2014
    5
    A good FPS of course, but that does not absolutely out of its competitors. As in all the FPS world, you must take a class, and go kill the enemy without any originality compared to other FPS.
Metascore
72

Mixed or average reviews - based on 26 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 16 out of 26
  2. Negative: 1 out of 26
  1. Sep 19, 2011
    75
    Overall, Medal of Honor is visually and aurally outstanding, but it needs much more polish on gameplay, scripted events, character/scene transitions and narrative construction before it's ready to really run with the big dogs.
  2. Jan 15, 2011
    60
    Medal of Honor doesn't become the current image of Electronic Arts – probably the most "humane" of all videogame corporations. Danger Close Games' debut reminds of a time when EA was a gloomy assembly line churning out soulless yearly sequels and movie tie-ins.
  3. LEVEL (Czech Republic)
    Jan 13, 2011
    70
    Good news: This is not Call of Duty. Bad news: This is not Call of Duty. Interesting environs and fast paced action can't hide more than a few story holes and the overall stupidity of opponents. [Issue#197]