Advanced Search Beta »
Basic Search Fields
Medal of Honor: Vanguard PlayStation 2
User Score
5.6 out of 10

Mixed or average reviews- based on 14 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 14
  2. Mixed: 1 out of 14
  3. Negative: 6 out of 14

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    10 out of 10
    Rate this:
    out of 10
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

  3. Characters remaining: 5000 out of 5000

view
per page
  1. JackT.
    Mar 30, 2007
    3
    I used to be a MOH fan... not anymore. The graphics look even worse than Frontline (which was released in 2002), enemy AI couldn't be more stupid, and animation is entirely recycled from MOHEA (which wasn't very good to begin with). The sad thing is, GoW proved that a PS2 game can look Good and be Fun. It shouldn't be too difficult in this day and age to develop a decent PS2 title. So I am very concerned about MOH Airborne for next-gen console (which are supposedly much harder to develop for), since I believe the same studio is developing both title. I used to be a MOH fan... not anymore.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  2. SteveH.
    Mar 30, 2007
    1
    Same old-same old... There is so much to say about WW2 and yet Medal of Honor Vanguard sticks to the "take that bridge", "retrieve the documents", "take the AA guns" type of objectives. The only thing new here is the jump: But it's excruciatingly difficult to control and you more or less only land where they tell you to land. So there is no reason to re-play the missions. Who would want to do that since the Germans act like rats trapped in very corridor-like environments anyway. Graphically, I have seen much better PS2 games, but this one is just ok. It's a renter.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  3. NikolaiC
    Apr 3, 2007
    4
    What could have been a great game ended up being a let down for me. I was excited when I heard the original soundtrack of MOH: Frontline and had hope, yet EA has decided to put out another game in order to sell copies. What a crock, I finished it in two days (that's using up 3 hours of each day). There were no reels of extras for me like the others. Just dissapointing.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  4. JohnnyY
    Apr 11, 2007
    1
    I love MOH, but this game is sad. It's beyond easy, it'll take 2 hours to beat. The graphics are better in the old games. The mulltiplayer only has 6 sites and lacks the great gun system of European Assault. Rather tahn buying this, play the classic European Assault a second time
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
prev next
Page:
  • 1

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
63 out of 100

Mixed or average reviews - based on 29 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 29
  2. Mixed: 22 out of 29
  3. Negative: 3 out of 29
  1. GamesRadar
    60
    The biggest problems with Vanguard lies in its graphics and overall length. It takes only six to eight hours to complete the game on normal, and graphically the game looks like it's seen some serious battle.
    Read full review
  2. IGN
    72
    If you're a Medal of Honor fan, you'll dig this title...However, if you felt like previous incarnations of this WWII title were getting closer and closer to being dishonorably discharged, Vanguard's paper-thin story, monotonous maps and upper-level frustration won't have you saluting this soldier's latest effort.
    Read full review
  3. Game Informer
    60
    Though you can get used to the sub-par controls, there's still no real reason to play Vanguard, from the uninspired level design to the tired subject matter. Sure, it works on a basic level in that you shoot Nazis and they fall down. Beyond that, there isn't much here to enjoy.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »