User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 240 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 22 out of 240

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 21, 2010
    I love how people ask why people are comparing this to other shooters. People!!! Killstreaks, customization, modern day warfare??? Heck even the noob tube! Hmmm....sounds a lot familiar. It is going to be compared! This franchise is now challenging others with the same emphasis of gameplay. It sucks because they did nothing different and everything wrong! I say people who like this for the multiplayer are the ones that found the glitch of backing the other team into a spawning corner and finishing the match like that. Oh, yeah! Real fun (sarcasm)! I agree, this game doens't even compare. End. Expand
  2. Oct 17, 2010
    if you like battlefield 2 this new game is worst in a lot of things.
    multiplayer: weapons not real ( guns are more powerful than sniper rifle), kills also behind rocks or into houses,
    maps too small, you can't advice your frinds about position of enemies ( in battlefield 2 was "back" button)
    singleplayer: too small ( 4 hours for a game which cost 70â
  3. Oct 17, 2010
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Not impressed.Can't wait for the next Call of Duty.
    Gameplay is to easy.A lot of bugs in the game.
    Sound of the weapons are realistic but graphics are not as good as COD modern warfare.
  4. Oct 22, 2010
    It is an attempt to replicate Call of Duty. And they failed at it at least on PS3. Here are the issues I have found that made game not fun for me: poor spawn points, rampant spawn point kills, sniper rifle is overpowered, game at the moment is a sniper standoff. You cannot mute players. Cannot quite the game until new game loads! Rewards count towards to kill streak. That means that people literally ride their rewards to get it all over again.

    What's good. Overall gunplay is fun. It is fast paced shooter if you like it.

    To give you a comparison of what shooter I think is the best on PS3: Killzone 2. I also like Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare gameplay and I would prefer it to MoH.
  5. Oct 14, 2010
    I agree the sensitivity to our service men and women in MoH is commendable, however, the 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 than zombies in L4D. At least L4D has an AI Director that prevents 40 zombies from coming out of the same hut. If you are buying 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. 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 for you. If you think you are going to have an one-of-kind, authentic, and compelling gaming experience, keep waiting and save your money. Expand
  6. Oct 17, 2010
    Horrible. Same old recycled MoH singleplayer.
    Multiplayer: Tiny path maps = no tactics, No squad play, bunnyhopping and spawn killing everywhere. After all these years EA cannot or will not fix the infuriating bugs dating back to Battlefield 2 and before. Never has so much hype been lavished on a title that delivered so little.
  7. Oct 16, 2010
    PS3. Lots of bugs. Graphical and audio hitching, the game felt like a late focus test or late beta build as opposed to a full on release build. The story was enjoyable, but the levels and AI are very simplistic and not at all a challenge for any experienced FPS player. I could not get into the multiplayer due to bugs, and the single player campaign was about 2.5 hours of play on hard. The game felt very incomplete and rough. Compared to halo Reach or COD:MW2 this was a vast disappointment, I would call it a mediocre expansion in comparison to the afore mentioned recent releases. Expand
  8. Jun 15, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Being a big fan of the old Medal of Honor games, I wanted to give this game a chance and see what it was like. The story takes place in 2001 on the verge of the Invasion of Afghanistan. Throughout the game, you will play as people from the U.S Navy Seals and the U.S Rangers. Both of their storylines take place in random battles that may have happened during the occupation of Afghanistan. At the end of the game, it clearly felt that it was leading up for a sequel (Medal Of Honor: Warfighter) as one of the characters says "This is not over" while standing over the corpse of one of his fellow comrads.

    Like any other Medal of Honor game, it focuses on one thing and sticks to it which is always a good thing
    The graphics are quite nice

    I do not know what it is but the guns do not seem to feel right
    Making Medal of Honor a Modern warfare game makes it feel like there are little FPS that take place in a different setting
    The multiplayer did not seem to be anything special The game lacks a story to keep people interested in playing it

    The Rating
    I would have to give Medal Of Honor a 4 out of 10
  9. Nov 29, 2010
  10. Oct 18, 2010
    Medal of Honor is probably the worst first person shooter that I've touched since the first Killzone. The best words to describe are it being utterly awful. Aside from being full of frame rate drops. The campaign is still playable. Question is do you really want to play it? It takes about 4 hours to complete on the hardest difficulty and provides absolutely no challenge at all and feels an exact replica of Modern Warfare.. Nothing new or innovative except the feature being able to peak around with a cover button. Which is the only good feature in this game so I gave it a 1 instead of a 0. If Medal of Honor Frontline did not come with the game I would have returned this blasphemy in a second. If you are looking for a game to hold you over. This is not the game for you.â Expand
  11. Nov 26, 2010
    This could have been a great game! How can you take lessons learned from bad company 2 and take two steps back? The multi player is supposed to be the jewel in this crown. I have experienced nothing but bad map designs and constant spawn killings!

Generally favorable reviews - based on 56 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 35 out of 56
  2. Negative: 0 out of 56
  1. Jan 16, 2011
    A successful comeback of the Medal of Honor-series, which is far away from reaching the top-ranks of the shooter genre. The short amount of the single-player campaign is really annoying.
  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. 80
    Medal of Honor is the thinking man's Call of Duty. If you like shooting terrorists but felt the story and campaign of Modern Warfare 2 was too darn stupid, this is the game for you. Mechanically it's close to its competitor, but content-wise it's a class better and more thoughtful. It's an enjoyable if short experience that is bound to leave a lasting impression.