User Score
7.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 239 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 22 out of 239

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. Mar 24, 2014
    5
    Τhis is one game that really disappointed me. I had played a MoH game on the PC (don’t remember exactly which) and it was really cool. This one kinda blows. The missions have no flow (sometimes the action completely halts because you have to do something that isn’t obvious at all to get the objectives going, like go stand on a rock or return to your team that is idleing for no reason by a wall). This is a very scripted game and that kinda kills it. Also the game is very short as you can easily complete it within 5 hours. The graphics are kinda lame for a 2010 game and the framerate isn’t even consistently good at all and you have a pretty bad game. For under 10 bucks though, you could buy this for a weekend of fun. Expand
  2. Nov 19, 2013
    5
    Sinceramente un fracaso Jugabilidad: los controles del BBC2 eran distintos, como era de esperar, como este MoH es una copia de la competencia cambiaron los controles. en cuanto a la jugabilidad es muy mala, pareciera que el personaje pesara 300kg y su gordura no lo dejara subir ni pasar por los lugares donde deberia. Graficos: estamos en el 2010 se podria haber hecho algo mucho mejor, en lo que es la campaña mas de la mitad del juego es en ambientes de noche con graficos pesimos. Tecnologia: Donde esta? Sonido: este es el mejor punto del juego, realmente se siente muy bien cdo se esta en modo multijugador, eso si varias veces aparece un bug en el sonido y si hay explosiones, disparos, gritos al mismo tiempo, algo de todo eso no lo vas a escuchar. Innovacion: 0 ni un poco de imaginacion pudieron tener. Singleplayer: aca esta lo peor del juego, muy corto, la historia muy pobre, los niveles todos lineales y aburridos. la inteligencia artificial parece de un juego de gameboy. lo jugue en modo dificil y aun asi me parecio muy facil. Tier 1 mode: que se puede decir de un modo total y absolutamente al PEDO. para que un modo que tengas que hacer todo de vuelta para comprar el tiempo, y los tiros en la cabeza, tranquilamente estos datos se pueden recopilar cdo haces la carrera. una mierda. Multiplayer: aca es donde se ve mejor y donde deberias divertirte mas, pero no. Los mapas, una cagada, solo es enfrentarse de un lado y del otro constantemente, sin poder flanquear y dejandole todo el merito a los putos camper. encima los mapas depende del modo que jueges, si por ejemplo solo te gusta el modo de team deathmatch solo vas a usar 3 putos mapas. si usas el sector control otros 2 mapas de mierda mas. La jugabilidad otra cagada, teniendo un arma de francotirador, con todas las miras y demas pelotudeces 4 tiros en la cabeza al enemigo y nisiquiera lo toca. no se si es error de los mapas o que bosta pero me ha hecho enojar por demas. Los movimientos, muy irreales. caen y vuelan como bolsas de papas. Las explosiones, si no tiras un RPG justo entre los ojos del enemigo no lo vas a matar, una mentira total Las armas: otra basura. las armas de los marines siempre son mejores que las de opfor, por supuesto sino que carajo hace un juego yanqui de mierda perdiendo contra los talibanes. asi esten configuradas igual el francotirador de marine mata a un solo tiro, mientras que el otro desde el mismo lugar con la misma configuracion solo toca al adversario. Expand
  3. Sep 27, 2013
    5
    Medal of Honor tries to reboot the once great franchise but fails miserably. The story mode is decent but very boring, the gameplay is okay. The graphics are bad, texture pop ins and framerate drops all the time, multiplayer is abandoned no one plays anymore. This is a game that you shouldint waste more than $5 on.
  4. Sep 8, 2013
    9
    This game was surprisingly good. I expected just a generic military shooter, but the story was extremely immersive and emotional, the graphics were above expectations, and the gameplay was very intuitive. There are many, many memorable parts of the campaign. The multiplayer is not as sophisticated as call of duty, but is still very fun, and has a good leveling system with improvements to weapons and other tactical advantages. I would recommend this game to any fan of military shooters, or as an introduction to the game genre. Expand
  5. May 29, 2013
    7
    EA's basically trying to do what CoD4 did, but it didn't work as well as they expected. There's still good in this reboot: The graphics are nice and the MP is good (as always), but the single-player story shouldv'e had more focus instead of the MP.
  6. Jan 13, 2013
    8
    I have to look back through my memory bank because I played this a while ago. The campaign was outstanding, I had no idea the ending would happen like it did. It was a really overall fun game. I am so glad I decided to sit down for a few hours and play the entire campaign, because if I wouldn't have, I would have not been able to live with myself. I felt compelled to do the campaign, just like I have with every game I have ever had. The game blew my mind, and I never expected it to be like that. DICE did a really nice job on this game as well as they did with the Battlefield series. Highly recommended. Expand
  7. Dec 26, 2012
    9
    In my point of view this game is more for people who have played this series since Medal Of Honor 1,because Medal Of Honor is not so "fancy" as "Call Of Duty" and "Battlefield",but it's a good shooter game,and Medal Of Honor is a classic.
  8. Oct 13, 2012
    8
    This is one of those games which was bashed by negative reviews unfair in my opinion. It has a great single player campaign and a not so great but decent multiplayer. And the Tier 1 campaign gives you another way to replay the campaign. Liked it.
  9. Aug 14, 2012
    8
    Medal of Honor is a great shooter, with a solid campaign and an addictive multiplayer. It looks amazing with the Frostbite engine, and the sound design is exactly like Battlefield's style. I will give thanks to EA, for making the terrific campaign, and Dice, for making the great multiplayer. I just wished that multiplayer was more detailed, more strategic. 85 out of 100
  10. Jun 24, 2012
    8
    The graphics are kinda good for it's time, although not amazing. I hate how it tries to impress you with the really high quality cut scenes when the actually game play is not nearly as good quality. The shouting physics are good, but it's annoying how the snipers are really weak. I know it adds to the realism and that's a good thing but I don't like how you can't tell whether your actually hitting someone or not, (there are no cross-hairs like in COD). Aside form the negatives, the game play is fun and inciting. And the again the shooting physics are really well done, with a good realistic amount of kick-back and range of the weapons. The trophies available in the game are easy to achieve, but they take a while, which is nice, because most games have really hard to get trophies which makes the platinum seem impossible to acquire. The campaign is better than that in most FPS shooters, it has a great fell to it and it puts you right in the action. The multilayer is is also very fun and easy to get used to. The thing with the classes I don't like but aside form that, it's easy to rack up kills and rank up.

    So there are many good things about the game and not much to go wrong. I rated 8 because I felt would be a bit generous. Well worth the buy, (nowadays you can pick up a copy for like £10) so if you don't own it already then i highly recommend you buy it, Good game.
    Expand
  11. Jun 15, 2012
    4
    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.

    Positives
    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

    Negatives
    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
    Expand
  12. Jun 1, 2012
    10
    I would have giving this game a 10, but i distract 1 point for not finishing the MP. That is Dice's part on this. MOH is a solid MP. It'sq 2012 and I still play it. But no support what so ever by Dice, that is why I give this game a 9/10 for the MP. On the SP ..oh man, THIS game is a masterpiece. Do not compare with COD because this is not like it at all. Realism is taken by the heart. No run and gun here. No 1man army. Sneak and Stealth levels like it should be. Very authentic and everything just fits in the storymode. I give the SP a solid 10/10 . Now my review is a little bit late and can not really wait until MOH Warfighter. Hopefully Danger Close will finish this game properly. Expand
  13. Mar 6, 2012
    7
    I've payed through the entire game and I know I might be doing this review a little late but it doesnt matter. In my opinion, MoH had a not so great multiplayer, but compensated by an incredible campaign. The things to highlight about this game are: -Inmersive campaign -Graphics full of details -Sounds -Tier 1 Competitve Scoreboard -Free Medal of Honor Frontlines included in Limited Edition - Free DLC
    Negative things about the game: -Campaign is too short -Multiplayer maps aren't big enough
    Expand
  14. Mar 2, 2012
    9
    Medal of Honor makes things simpler than other recent First Person Shooters. It uses strategy instead of a bunch of dumb random kills. I love the online especially.
  15. Feb 26, 2012
    10
    The best of the Modern War shooters. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  16. Feb 24, 2012
    5
    This game makes me want to cry I just picked it up and I know its a little late but there is no redeeming qualities of this game.First lets start with the story, here are the cons the A.i is very bad its not even funny also most of the story feels lazy and it just feels like you walk through an area shoot a guy and repeat. My final points is that its just not good and even the gameplay feels like a sloppy mess now lets talk about the multiplayer. The multiplayer was enjoyable because it was made by dice which the campaign wasnt made by dice. the multiplayer is its only redeeming quality. but overall i wouldnt recommend this game unless your getting it for free. This game should be called "Medal of no honor". Expand
  17. Dec 14, 2011
    8
    I'm a huge fan of battlefield but dice did a great job developing this new moh game. Campaign was amazing, the graphic are amazing, but the online was ok. it doesn't have alot of vehicles. They have the tanks but the tanks weren't as good as battlefield's. Overall this game is pretty good.
  18. Dec 11, 2011
    8
    This game is pretty good. Multiplayer is superb, sortof a cross between bad company 2, and modern warfare 2. Not alot of selection in weapons, but the graphics are superb, yet the game needs more maps to play on. Single player was short but alot of fun, with a unique perspective.
  19. Nov 22, 2011
    7
    The reboot of Medal of Honor has finally came, high expectations as Airborne wasn't really up to par with the other one but this game here, is too familiar it dosen't have anything new one of the strongest points of this game is the campaign, it has a "realistic" feel and one of those moments was when the group was running out of ammo and boom heli comes and destroy the place, but the rest is generic have you sniper mission get ambushed ladida blablabla and multiplayer well lets just say isn't that worth checking out cause there is alot of spawn campers. this game is rent worthy. Expand
  20. Aug 16, 2011
    7
    Another game that fell victim to a lot of hype before it came out and didn't live up to its very high expectations (Considering DICE helped with the multi-player). The campaign was the best part of the game even though it was pathetically easy and extremely short (If you are decent at First Person Shooters you could dominate this game in 5 hours even on the hardest difficulty). Graphics were up to par with Battlefield & Call of Duty but was no match versus their online play. The killstreaks wouldn't work properly and the online maps were a camper's dream. I was not a big fan of having different weapons options depending on which team you were on. Not only that but there wasn't a very big selection of weapons on the multi-player or campaign mode. This made the game boring and repetitive very quickly. I would definitely recommend renting this game and playing through the campaign. As for playing online, there are much better online FPS shooters out there at the moment (Battlefield Bad Company, Killzone 3, Call of Duty, etc.) that you should dive into before touching this one. Expand
  21. Aug 6, 2011
    7
    not a bad game. the single player is sweet with only a few minor problems. it's a little short but it manages to cover stealth operations, massive battles, scouting for air cav, and gunning out of an apache. the biggest annoyance i had was the invisible check points where you could be two feet from a squad member when you actually have to practically be on top of them to progress. mp is disappointing coming from dice. kill streaks, no recoil, and lack of weapons make it a fairly shallow and boring experience. Expand
  22. Jul 15, 2011
    9
    All lovers of first person shooters should have this video game handy. Graphics are fantastic. Online is the best feature of this game (although there are very few maps to choose from). My only concern is with campaign mode: I wish it was a tad bit longer.
  23. Jul 10, 2011
    7
    i liked this game but i am not going to say i loved playing it. ill start off with the story it is interesting enough to play but i found you can only play a little bit of it a night before it gets dull and i find you die way to easily even on the easiest setting. not saying dying easy is a bad thing it is just something im not used to and it makes the game alot harder. the voice acting i found was not very impressive except for the field comander who actually gave a damn about the situation and i wish the story was longer but as always with these types of games it is more geared towards online play. now for online play i liked it in some ways and disliked it as wellwhat i liked about it is that it is really easy to get good at playing online but it is also almost imposible to stay alive for more than a couple kills and i found i wasnt really contributing to the outcome of the battle but it is fun to play in doses so i suggest to give it a try Expand
  24. Jul 9, 2011
    9
    This is game has amazing graphics, a movie like story, The campaign is short and easy though. I played it on Hard (the highest difficulty) and died two-three times during the campaign. However the epicness of the story and razor sharp dialogue and voice acting will have you playing again. The weapons sound like real life and have that feel of power. The multi player which is made by Dice (Masterminds behind the Bad Company 2) is engaging and rewards team play. If you go up like a lone wolf you will die instantly, but have a group of teamates with you and the battlefield becomes and intense place. Overall the game is excellent, aside from the length and the lack of difficulty; the game is awsome. I highly recommend that you go out and buy this game. Expand
  25. May 20, 2011
    9
    this game looks great, the guns are awesome (especially the battle rifles!) and it's an all-around very solid, gritty and fun shooter. the sp is short but exhilarating and the mp is top of the line. the maps are much more confined than you'd see in, say, a battlefield game but it really doesn't play like a COD game (which is perhaps why it wasn't appreciated as the stellar game it is when it was released just a short while before black ops). the terrain is often much more vertical than that in duty and it just doesn't feel as frantic. it's certainly not a tactical sim or anything but the modern combat afghanistan setting makes it feel more realistic and exciting to me. i love shooters, and medal of honor is one of the best. Expand
  26. May 14, 2011
    10
    As everyone compares every FPS that comes out with black ops, so will I. There are lots of people saying that MOH's campaign is short, but, have you played Black Ops's campaign? MoH has 8 levels (aprox) and Black Ops has 14 levels (aprox), but those 8 levels are far more exciting and fun than Call of Duty's.It may have less levels but they're also longer than Black Ops's campaign.
    MoH uses
    Frostbite engine (bad company's engine), and Black Ops uses a sightly improved World At War's engine.
    I think that both Moh and Call of Duty have a great sound quality, but the most prominent is MoH's.
    As I havent played the multiplayer yet, I cant say anything about it
    So, to sum all up, i think Moh deserved a much better score than Black Ops (im not saying i dont like black ops), because I think the developers from Moh put a lot more effort into the game than Treyarch (or whoever develops the game) with Black Ops
    I think MoH is a great game, you should give it a try, it won't disapoint you
    Expand
  27. May 10, 2011
    7
    When this game was first announced I was really excited to see how MOH faired on the PS3. Since the unforgettable Frontline, the series has struggled to make a big impact so I was hopeful that would change when they changed the setting and opted for a more modern environment. Having completed the game and sampled everything on offer I have to confess that ultimately i'm left what the feeling og what could have been. MOH is actually a very good game but with everything else on offer (and before anyone says anything i'm not comparing it to COD) you feel as though this is a missed oppertunity. Visually the game is pretty impressive however it's not on par with Uncharted on Killzone in my opinion, but nonetheless MOH is certainly up their with the best looking FPS. The gameplay runs smoothly without doing anything spectacular its has a strong engine and does what is required for a FPS but does benefit from a sweet sniper shooting system, the moment between the firing of a shot and contact being made is extremely well thought of and you never tire of sniping due to this. In spite of this you will every so often run into a series of frustrating and stupid glitches like seeing an open piece of land and not being able to run into it! The single player mode is short but fun nonetheless just don't go expecting anything extraordinary although MOH does offer a good variety and the voice acting is superb and interacts really well. Multiplayer carries on the Battlefield effect but for me isn't any better than what BC2 had to offer. The maps seem smaller and I didn't find myself wanting to play on and on like other games have like MW and BC, however it's not all bad far from it when you get going its really immensly enjoyable though the unlock system should have included a lot more depth for my liking and the soldier management should have been more expansive. Overall, MOH gives us reasons to be optimistic about what future installments will bring as this is a good starting point and a respectable return for the MOH series however it certainly has room for improvement but is still worthwile purchase. Expand
  28. May 4, 2011
    8
    Medal of Honor 2010 is a good game that needs tuning for its next upcoming franchise. First, the campaign is rather short, you can finish it within 6 1/2 hours. And the gameplay for the campaign is somewhat not as fast and fluid as its competitors. The multiplayer component of the game is great. You can easily get matched with other players without a long waiting time. The maps are also okay. However, with the online pass-- not many people use the maps/and game modes EA offered for additional $9.99. What this means is that it is ideal to make it free so that there will be more players on the maps, rather than paying for something that I see just 2 players.

    The sound in Medal of Honor is great, but the weapon customization has to be improved. There is the need to have more weapons in the campaign mode, and more easy to get ammo from the "opposing forces" while on the campaign.
    Expand
  29. Apr 20, 2011
    9
    Comparando com o BC2 está um pouco abaixo.. Mas este jogo também tem os seus pontos fortes.
    Eu gostei da campanha, acho que estava bem conseguida. Quanto ao online, ao inicio detestei porque estava habituado ao BC2, MAS assim que me adaptei foi o máximo.. Estive sempre nos tres primeiros :)
  30. Apr 14, 2011
    9
    Should not even be compared to the Black Ops. It is far beyond that and you have to play it much differently. I played Black Ops for a few days and couldn't understand why Kobe would do the commercial. Medal of Honor is a far better game. The single player game is decent, but short. The multi-player aspect is the focus of this review.

    Most maps are tight and require different
    strategies than BFBC2. The graphics are great. Due to the smaller map sizes for some of the battles, they don't include destructable buildings. This is the only bad part of the game. But on a tight map, if they did allow destructable buildings, the battlefield could be leveled withn moments of a match starting. Multi-player Maps are limited in number, but still maintain their fun factor because of the "human" element. Negatives include limited leveling and weaponry. The rest is positive. You can hop on anytime you have 15 minutes to spare since the games are shorter than BFBC2. I see this as a positive due to the demands of my life.

    They've perfected the art of forcing you to play to your job in this game.
    Expand
  31. Mar 3, 2011
    8
    I give this game a 8 out of 10
    ok MOH is pretty good in some ways better than COD. This game has more realism than COD which i like a lot. The graphics are really good, i enjoy being a Tier 1 Operator, sneaking around and shooting stuff up. The sound is amazing the bass as u pull the trigger of your M4 is great. story is alright most war films will maybe have a similar story line and the
    story is very short, i beat this game on HARD 2 times in 1 day, first because i enjoyed it but its really short. The Cons are glitches and framerate, i was on the last level and it was glitchy the whole time, kinda killed the mood. but on my second playthru it didnt happen as bad.

    Multiplayer is basically the same as Battlefield Bad Company 2 multiplayer. (both are made by DICE)
    so if u enjoyed bad company 2 multiplayer im sure u will enjoy MOH multiplayer.
    Expand
  32. Jan 26, 2011
    8
    I know this game is supposed to be the competition to Call of Duty but it missed the mark. First the game takes a lot of influence from COD which it can come off as a copy cat. But those ideas work very well here. The downside is that it glitches every now and then. Not enough to ruin the fun but enough to notice. And the campaign is way too short. The story is ok but as you progress through the game, it just moves until the end. No real build up. Playing the game overall though was very fun and I recommend it. Expand
  33. Jan 17, 2011
    7
    Medal of Honor (2010) is a good shooter despite a few problems. This game offers a more realistic take on the First Person Shooter. The game play is just your average First Person Shooter but provides an enjoyable experience with a few vehicle sections to break up the on foot sections like riding on an ATV or piloting a helicopter. The on foot sections pretty much play as a shooting gallery where you just move through a linear path, shoot a bunch of enemies and move on. You'll always have some team mates fighting along. There are some neat sniping sections in the game and times where you need to use the laser designator to paint targets in the distance. The mission where you are in a helicopter and rain death on enemy villages and mortar teams provides some thrills but the game play is quite limited because it plays like an arcade on-rails shoot-em up. There's no freedom on where you can manoeuvre the helicopter other than controlling where you shoot. The weapons are nicely designed and fit with the afghan setting but provide little recoil making it a little easier to use Assault Rifles for long range encounters with the enemy. The game incorporates a little bit of stealth where you infiltrate enemy lines and try to take out the enemy quietly. The dark environments in these sections enhance the stealthy atmosphere. Speaking about the environments, the graphics are crisp and detailed although the character models look like they've been ripped off from Battlefield: Bad Company. The scope of the environments maybe huge but the game design is linear and doesn't really provide enough freedom but it's not a huge problem. One thing that this game does extremely well is that Danger Close has nailed the sound design. The radio chatter, the sound design for the guns and the explosions all help to capture the realistic atmosphere of being in the battlefield. The campaign may not be long but at least there's multiplayer. Developed by EA DICE and using the Frostbite Engine rather than Epic Games Unreal Engine 3 used for the single player campaign, multiplayer is quite fun even if it is a little bit unoriginal. I like the fact that that you can choose between 3 classes (Rifleman, Special Ops and Sniper) and customise their weapons and weapon attachments but I wish there could have been more customisation options. There aren't a lot of weapons to unlock but at least there's enough to suit anyone's play style or situation like being defensive with a sniper rifle and being aggressive with a LMG. There are a few things to unlock in this game including medals and weapon attachments which extend the lifespan of the multiplayer. As with the single player, the sound is fantastic even if it feels familiar to any gamer who's played Battlefield. The sound design makes the maps in multiplayer feel like a real battlefield with the sounds of mortar strikes splashing down and deafening you and the sound of weapon fire echoing around you. Medal of Honor plays like most FPS online games with some nice modes to play like Team Assault, Objective Raid, Combat Mission and Sector Control. None of these modes feel fresh but I guess EA DICE played it safe and just imported some of the multiplayer modes from the Battlefield series. I have nothing wrong with that though due to the fact I don't have a Battlefield game. The maps are varied in size ranging from the dense urban streets of Kandahar Market Place to the open airfield of Mazar-I-Airfield. The maps are not too big and not too small. The Support Actions are a nice addition to the multiplayer and mostly not too overpowered. I like the fact there are defensive support actions and offensive support action and gives you an interesting choice when you obtain one. Do you either activate a defensive support action so you (and your team mates) can enemy on the radar for a limited time or do you go for the offensive support action and try to get a few more kills? This game requires you to adapt to a more defensive strategy because it's a bit harder to get a kill in this game than an online FPS like Call of Duty: Black Ops; it takes a few more bullets to kill an opponent. At times, the multiplayer runs smooth and can be quite fun but I did wish the spawning system wasn't so flawed. Sometimes you can easily be spawn trapped sometimes and you continuously rank up death after death because you find yourself spawning where there's opponents or just a few seconds before a mortar strike hits the ground and kills you. Good luck trying to spawn in clear air. One funny thing I noticed is that when you get blown to smithereens by a rocket strike or Mortar Strike you just drop dead instead of blasting 50 feet into the air! One good thing about this game is that it includes Medal of Honor: Frontline to download to your hard drive but I just wished it could run the game from the actual disc itself. Medal of Honor is a nice, realistic shooter that will appeal to some shooter fans. Expand
  34. Dec 10, 2010
    5
    Medal of Honor could have been so much better. I wanted it to be better than the next COD and I convinced myself it would be. Then I played the Beta, and hated it, swore it off, but then for some reason...I guess anticipation for a new shooter, bought it when it came out. I should have just waited, but I returned it and put money toward COD which I got anyways...
  35. Dec 8, 2010
    6
    I've read some of the reviews and I've seen some similar comments to the ones I'm about to make. About the campaign, it gives you a fresh experience on a new battlefield, and the environment is very fulfilling as it shows a new perspective. The movements of the AI are very professional, and the sound is great as well. The missions are engaging and each one is different than the last, with different landscapes. Its different because you get missions where you're undercover, and missions where you are an all out ranger. The most disappointing, if only, thing about the campaign is its length. I was shocked to see that I finished the game on Hard as well on the second day of play time. It was really disappointing, and kept me wanting more. If you guys like following games like I do, I feel that you would be disappointed as well, since the game ends at a point where you just have to have more action. The multi player amounts nothing to COD style, and hands down, the COD mechanism is way better. The game play becomes increasingly repetitive. It is extremely rewarding to get the kill streaks, although they are all the same, but thats if you manage to get it by hiding from the millions of snipers! As others have said as well, I was extremely excited about the game, and I recommend it to those who wish to play a different landscape, and experience a wonderfully built campaign. However, the shortness of the campaign is a big disappointment, and multi player wont be as addictive as COD, at least in my opinion. I regard any game 6 and under not to be bothered with at all, and a 7 worth playing, but I've given it a 6 because of the campaign and the somewhat repetitive multi player. As a devoted fan of MOH since the first medal of honor, I had to buy the game since it was not a WW2 game, but I feel it has potential to be so much better. Expand
  36. Dec 4, 2010
    7
    Decent single player, but way too short 5 hours of game play just isn't enough.
    Multiplayer feels like it's made in an awful hurry, game freezes a lot and it also has other technical issues. Too few maps and they are too small. Weapon and gadget unlock system is stupid too little to unlock. Playing multiplayer itself is decent. Combat mission (BF:BC2 type rush) and team assault (just a
    normal team death-match)are good but sector control and objective raid are just bad modes. Expand
  37. Nov 30, 2010
    6
    I was really disappointed with this game. I remember seeing the trailers and thought it looked the puppies privates. So I pre ordered and rushed out to buy it on release. Single player was fun but far too short... I mean 4-5 hours gameplay? Multiplayer was fun at first, but quickly became dull, the maps are far too similar and you quickly forget them as they merge into one brown/green looking camp/hillside whatever. Too many snipers and it felt that the customisation was simply a few choices. I wanted this to be a better game I really did but was left feeling it can sit on the shelf with the other trite titles out there. EA I hope you get it right on MOH2 (They will do it!) Expand
  38. Nov 29, 2010
    4
    Sorry i didnt mean to give it a ten but really A 4 BLH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH I NEED TO MAKE THIS 150 CHARACTERS SO THAT I CAN DO THE SUBMITINGS ON THE WEB OF SITES
  39. Nov 26, 2010
    4
    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!
  40. 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 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
  41. Nov 18, 2010
    9
    Ok, Here we go! really Descent game.Great graphics and Lots of fun ,but I have to admit,I did expect more single campaign. action. Simply Fell way to short. Was kinda shocked when the credits came up and game over. I know most of these games are built around multiplayer and I did enjoy what I did get to play . Im not going to compare this to other games. I'm glad I own it and I will get my monies worth out of it. Anyways enjoy as I did. Expand
  42. Nov 16, 2010
    9
    I bought this game while I was waiting on COD BO. The folks at GameStop recommended it, but did say that you will either love it or hate it. I love it. Finally a game that simulates real combat. You don't have all of those HALO players, who run around the maps, sort of willy nilly and shoot everything that moves. If you do that in MOH, you will get killed, as well you should have. The sniper mode in this game is phenomenal. The designers actually allow you to stay in the back of the map and pick off unsuspecting opponents who are lurking around or sticking their head up. Way to Go! In the new COD BO, the sniper mode sucks unless you like to run around like a chicken with your head cut off, shooting people on the run. In COD, the kill-cam makes it IMPOSSIBLE to get into a good sniper's nest and wait for people to appear. The maps in MOH make sense in that they are laid out perfectly for combat missions. AND the best thing about MOH is that you have to work together to get anything accomplished. The designers have mastered that concept. If they put out more combat mission maps, we can leave COD forever. Or at least leave it to the jump up in the air HALO players and the "side to side" combatants who win most of the faceoffs. MEDAL OF HONOR IS A GREAT GAME. Expand
  43. Nov 11, 2010
    8
    This was a very enjoyable game. In terms of single player I would say this game was great, although not quite as exciting as the campaign in MW2. However, in terms of multiplayer I think this has all of the CoD games beat. I just prefer the flow of combat, controls, and maps on this game personally. From a gameplay perspective I prefer this to Black Ops, but Black Ops just has more gameplay modes thanks to zombies and all that. There are a few laggy moments both in campaign and online, so if they can improve on that and add a longer campaign mode plus add some more unique game modes, I think the sequel can go up to a 9 or more in terms of quality. Still an awesome game all around...I'm not really understanding the haters for this game. Expand
  44. Nov 11, 2010
    10
    First off i would like to say EA made the mistake by having two different developers work on the game. Danger close and DICE. The single player campaign is alright and seems rushed on development. The graphics are great, and the story is awesome. The only downfall is the game engine, which makes the game's overall feel a bit out dated. Danger close used the unreal engine, which is the same engine used to make gears of war. The game engine is outdated and they should of used frostbite 1.5 from DICE. The multi-player side of this game is great! very simple and this uses frostbite 1.5 from DICE. This is a perfect combination of Battlefield bad company 2 and modern warfare 2. Its simple leveling system and low selection of guns really keep the game simple. Games usually last 15mins to 5 mins which is great for people who can't sit in front of a tv for 12 hours a day. This game overall is well done but needs more work on the single player side. Expand
  45. Nov 10, 2010
    10
    I really do enjoy this game, campaign and online multiplayer. If you stop comparing it to Call of Duty and just play it for what it is you'll begin to love it. I just recently bought Black Ops and was really disappointed with the online multiplayer portion so I traded it in and picked up Medal of Honor. I can't believe how horrible Treyarch made the graphics on multiplayer with Black Ops. Anyways I do recommend Medal of Honor, great game! Expand
  46. Nov 8, 2010
    10
    Moh 2010 is the most precise, accurate, and graphically correct first person shooter ever made to date. And with Black Ops on it's way in one day. I can say after reviewing the B.o. trailers that Moh 2010 will still be the best PURE First Person Shooter out there. I also predict that many will defect from MW2 and BO after they become frustrated with the most important part of the game: SHOOTING. Much like many people are leaving MW2 to play BBC2 now. Ultimately they will both have their followings but if your serious about shooting MOH 2010 is the way to go. BO might woe you with it's colorful awards and other functions but No one can deny that SHOOTING is the most important part and MOH 2010 excels in this area. Expand
  47. Nov 4, 2010
    5
    Im gonna break down exactly why you should or should not buy this game by referring to the games pros and cons Pros Single player --------------------------- 1. Good graphics 2. Good sound effect 3. Not too many bugs 4. A nice array of different types of missions 5. Does a pretty good job of showing a soldiers point of view on the modern battlefield Cons Single player --------------------------- 1. The enemy AI is not very polished, Setting it on Hard difficulty will make it a little challenging atleast. 2. The story itself is only average at best. Don't expect to be on the edge of your seat. 3. Story is very cut scene driven instead of being more real time like current games. 4. The enemy does not use cover correctly(Refer to 1) Multi-Player Pros ------------------------ 1. The graphics are good 2. The sound quality of the weapons are good 3. Knifing an enemy is fast and usually effective and non time consuming. 4. You can reload while sprinting 5. The killstreaks are not automated which is nice 6. Has potential to be an amazing online game 7. Goes for a non arcade approach Now for the Cons..... Multi-Player Cons -------------------------- 1. Poor hit detection 2. You can clearly see yourself knife or axe someone yet they do not die 3. Sniper dominant maps 4. Many of the maps force you to play with a very slow and campish approach 5. Lag is very aggravating 6. The game often freezes for a few moments which at times causes you to be killed 7. The game often freezes and you have to hard reset your system which can kill your system 8. Explosives in this game are not realistic and have very little radius and damage 9. Lack of guns to choose from gives you very little variety 10. There are only 2 pistols in the game period.... boring 11. Sniper rifles are 1 shot kills anywhere 12. The majority of players on the game use Sniper weapons 13. The guns lack balance 14. The game modes lack balance such as Combat Mission especially 15. You can't go prone online... What realistic war game doesn't allow you to go prone 16. The aim assist often tells you that an enemy is there even through walls 17. The aim assist practically aims the gun for you Single Player Score- 7 Multi-Player Score- 3 Overall Score- 5 Verdict- This game is a rental, Do not rush out and buy this game. For some people I would like to say don't buy this game at all. Rent this game first and try it then go and possibly buy it if its your type of game. Expand
  48. Nov 1, 2010
    7
    A very average game, have seen and done all this kind of thing in the call of duty games, and this was a very rough around the edges competitor for said games series, slow movement and average graphics and a too-short single player campaign jus made me look forward to cod:black-ops even more!
  49. Nov 1, 2010
    8
    Medal of Honor is definitely a fun first person shooter. The story in the single player campaign is interesting and well thought out. It has a more realistic feel than Call of Duty MW ever has and doesn't disappoint with graphics.
    If people want to go play Call of Duty than play Call of Duty, but don't trash a game because it's different than your beloved, Call of Duty series.
    Medal of
    Honor is definitely worth picking up and will not disappoint. Expand
  50. Oct 27, 2010
    8
    My first impressions of this game were not so positive, but after giving it a chance and some time I thoroughly enjoy the multiplayer. It doesn't have quite as many features as Battlefield but I feel that DICE was aiming for that type of simplistic arcadey feel. The campaign isnt awful but it feels like a completely different game then the multiplayer because they had another developer, Danger Close, working on that side of it. The campaign controls just don't feel as tight and responsive as the multiplayer or a game like Call of Duty. If you like Battlefield or Call of Duty I recommend Medal of Honor for its multiplayer. The campaign is the secondary selling point of this title. Expand
  51. Oct 26, 2010
    10
    This game is one of my favorite games in the past year. Not only does it surpass all of the Call Of Duties, it lives up all the other MOH games. People need to realize what war would be like. Its a slower paced, sniper dominated era. NOT walking around with a noobtube or running around with a Knife. I give this game 2 thumbs up and suggest it to anyone, not only the Multiplayer, but the story as well Expand
  52. Oct 24, 2010
    8
    This game was just what I was hoping and looking for. The campaign has so far been providing brilliant entertainment value at the weekends, and the online also doesn't fail to deliver. Everything I've been after for a while now. Better than Op Flashpoint and a refreshing change from COD4 (Got bored with MW2 and went back to the original) This game is definately recommended.
  53. Oct 24, 2010
    8
    This game at first seemed to be original. Of course the singleplayer was, but on the other hand the multiplayer wasn't. It felt too much like battle field only more realistic. The campaign was short but enjoyable and memorable in the fact the the events and characters were based on actual events and people. Those people who say that MOH has fake guns have either never seen a gun in their lives, or they are mentally challenged and should be institutionalized. End of story. Expand
  54. Oct 24, 2010
    9
    This game received an unfair critical reception. It's reasonable to expect it to be compared to Modern Warfare 2, but thankfully EA/Danger Close decided to take the high road and add some more realistic and tactical aspects to a game whose genre has devolved into running around like a headless chicken. For instance, in Sector Control some good rules to learn and follow are;

    1) Don't run
    around in the open
    2) Understand how cover works
    3) Understand how streak bonuses can help
    4) When your location is compromised, run. I was worried that the beta's problems be included in the final release, but thankfully that's not the case. This ain't no MAG, that action is fast and fair as long as you know the rules. Well done, EA/Danger Close. I'm eagerly awaiting Medal of Honor 2.
    Expand
  55. Oct 22, 2010
    9
    For those who complain it was a short game, you bought Modern Warfare 2 didn't you? At least MOH was longer than that pitiful campaign. And MOH does it a lot better. It puts you in the shoes of three different characters as they attempt to ascend the Shahikot Mountains and eliminate the Taliban threat. The game does not try to sell itself to you as an 'epic' storyline, it is simply what MOH has always done, it puts you in the shoes of soldiers within a war as you tackle objectives that would not seem out of place in real life.

    Another thing I have read complaints about in reviews was that the auto-aim does everything for you. This is true to the extent that when you pull up the iron sights and it usually will lock onto a target. Just like in all the other CoD's. CoD wanted players to be constantly using iron sights and quickly releasing and pulling the left trigger in order to lock onto targets, and it always came across as cheap and unrealistic. MOH is meant to be a game where realism is key, so yes, you can runaround CoD-like and shoot everything thgat moves with the cheap lock on tactics, or you could play it as though it mattered. Most of the time I found myself walking into buildings with the pistol drawn, and moving out of buildings with the assault rifle already in iron sights. It makes sense. Real soldiers don't shift their eyes from the scope for a second to increase their accuracy, and therefore neither should you.

    Now, I remember Yahtzee or Movie Bob (someone anyway) had a go at Hydrophobia's developers because they told everyone that they only thought it was crap because they played it wrong. The argument was that if the game doesn't do a good job of pointing out to you how to play it then it doesn't deserve that leeway. MOH however, constantly shows you your squad mates moving around with their eyes to their sights, moving slowly and checking corners. The first mission practically takes you by the hand for this process. So my only conclusion is that the haters of the auto-assist are playing it wrong. They've played too much unrealistic CoD to understand that sometimes they need to change their playstyle for new games.

    As far as graphics go, I've never cared. It occasionally looks very pretty, and seeing the mountain in the distance is wonderful. But sometimes there will be an abscence of textures and they'll take longer than usual to pop in. The scene most of you will have seen before where the goat stands up and you watch a team mate strangle an enemy was very jarring for me as the goat never loaded it's texture and as such was just a white glob smack bang in the middle of the screen.

    As far as gameplay goes, it's fun and solid. The occasional glitch may pop up, it froze entirely on one occasion and on another, I was stuck behind the team leader thanks to an invisible wall, and he was waiting for whatever trigger I was supposed to set off (and already had but it obviously missed it). Other than that I have no complaints however, it was a very solid game, even if it was a bit short, that did a fantastic job of putting you into the shoes of soldiers in their everday life. It is not an epic plot, it follows a few squads up a mountain attempting to eliminate the Taliban. It doesn't get much bigger than that for the most part, but it does do what it aims to do very well.

    As for online gameplay, I've never been big on it. But I hear mixed reviews of that too. I have to say though, I find it much more likely that the multiplayer is solid and that all the complainers are just upset that it isn't CoD.
    Expand
  56. Oct 22, 2010
    5
    I was really excited that Medal of Honor was finally coming out on the PS3, but this game was very disappointing. The single player campaign is pretty good and the only reason I gave this game a score of 5. I thought the campaign mode on COD MW2 was A LOT better. I don't even know where to start when talking about the online multiplayer mode. It's like a giant step backwards in online gaming. I honestly got sick of it after only 2 days. The maps are tiny and it seems like there are only about 4 or 5 different maps. You can't really customize your character very much either, you can get some minor weapon upgrades but you can't pick what type of grenades you want or if you want to carry smoke and there are no flash bangs. The controls are sloppy and I have to jump like 10 times to make it over a tiny anthill. I would rate the online mode about 2 or 3. It also seems that everyone on this game is a sniper and half the time I die before I even take 2 steps. Plus since you need to do well to unlock weapons upgrades it actually takes experience points away from you when you have more deaths than kills. So basically you're stuck in the middle and it's nearly impossible to get to the elite weapons upgrades. I can't believe I traded in BFBC2 for this crap. That game was sooo much better online.

    If you're an online gamer I would definitely stay away from this game and if you want to just play the story mode then just rent this and you will probably beat it in a day or two.
    Expand
  57. Oct 22, 2010
    2
    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.
    Expand
  58. Oct 21, 2010
    10
    there is something fishy going on here. this game should be praised on all levels for the orginality and substance that it brings to the war game scene. nobody likes change, but cmon, call of duty black ops better be brand spanking original or im going to be pissed, you can only ride the same train for so long until you run out of stations. its time to move on, move ahead and move foward, and the beacon showing us the way spells M.O.H. the singleplayer is not flawless, but no game in the history of game development ever is. There are a few texture pops, but no screen tears or signs that the console cant handle the engine, so all in all it runs smoother than the bonnet of a porsche. gameplay can only be described in one word, flow. i didnt fight my way through the maps i sort of flowed through them on a tidal wave of hail and bullets. there is sometimes so much going on it becomes very easy to die. much like a real war, it can sometimes take one very strategically placed bullet from and an advantaged position and your out of the game. This is the first realistic war game that doesnt bore with realism. Whenever theres a lull in the gameplay your always entertained with the spectacular atmosphere and surroundings. this game is drop dead gorgeous, always a beauty to look at from start to finish. i dont know what the sh!t people are talking about with these reviews. I have made an account just to write this review in hopes that people wont fall for this **** thats been cracking around metacritic and most reviewing sites. those poor buggers at danger close, putting in all this effort to completely rework the war franchise and medal of honour gets put down because lets face it, its medal of honour. I havent been thrilled like this with medal of honour since the days of frontline on the ps2, storming the beaches at normandy on that first level. Do you remember that feeling? that epic feeling? it got better with age.
    multiplayer is not cod. multiplayer is not battlefield 2 bad company. It is the best of both worlds. i sh!t you not, i started playing the multiplayer at around 10 pm, played a few rounds, got lost in the game, looked outside and it was day. this is addicitive be warned. the maps on dm are small and tight, making for some furious gameplay and run-and-gun action, and the conquest style mission mode maps are huge, i say again, by the power of greyskull, why is this game being flamed. do yourself an honour, by this game, it is well worth the money and will keep you more entertained than any other game you currrently have.
    Expand
  59. Oct 21, 2010
    1
    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
  60. Oct 20, 2010
    8
    If I read one more COD or Battlefield comparison with MOH i'm going to scream! MOH needs to be looked at as its own game, not a clone of another game. Yes it is a FPS and yes it revolves around a war but that's where the comparisons should cease. The single player campaign is around 4-5 hours long but really, for a FPS that is long enough. Danger Close have done a great job giving us a polished game. From the intense gun fights to shooting terrorist bunkers from a chopper, all is in good fun. The sniper missions are also great. The only 2 issues I ran into on the single player is that sometimes your team would get stuck in a motion. All I did was walk up to them, whack them with a little friendly fire and they were back on the mission at hand. The second bug was that sometimes in cut scenes the audio would cut out for a second here and there. Definitely not a deal breaker. On the multiplayer, i have played for around 15 hours so far and am thoroughly enjoying it. In my own experience with the game, i find that it takes me back to the Counter-strike days. Some of the maps just have a certain feel about them. I did have drop outs the first day from purchasing the game but haven't had one drop out since then. EA must have worked on their servers. With the single player and multiplayer in one package (and free DLC coming next month), I would definitely recommend this game to any FPS fan who is not in love with one particular franchise. Expand
  61. Oct 20, 2010
    5
    I was hoping that this game would replace COD as my favorite 1st person shooter. It failed. Its super short 6 hours? Thats what I would expect from a $15 XBLA game. Its super easy and multiplayer is a serious let down. MOH = fail.
  62. Oct 19, 2010
    7
    Great Single Player Game. Everything about it is great.... except the length... and I thought MW2 was short. I beat it on hard in 6hours. and when i added up the top times of each level in teir 1 mode it came to roughly 1.5hours. Brutal! Multiplayer isnt good enough to keep it around. I suggest a rent of this game. play it on hard. get some online play in and take it back. its too bad because Single Player REALLY IS GOOD... but too short. Expand
  63. Oct 18, 2010
    6
    What it comes down to, simply, is that different does not mean better or even good. Call of Duty is the leader for a reason. Medal of Honor has good concepts (I particularly like the timed levels and the leader board and the combat mission), but the collision detection is poor at best and in only my first 5 hours of game play in the campaign, I'd already met 3 freezes ( uncommon for us Playstation users.) Call of Duty takes gaming and the 'one more round' concept to another level. Medal of Honor has only one way of making you play one more match: and that's to try to force you to play one more match by putting you into another game in progress, without really giving you an option. And also if you are on a team that can't seem to get any chemistry, too bad. You have no option, but to play with them over and over again until you either quit or the other members of your team do. I really was looking forward to this tittle because I'm looking for the monopoly that is CoD to be broken up, but MoH doesn't have the same ring or addictive game play to even have a shot. Expand
  64. Oct 18, 2010
    1
    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
  65. Oct 18, 2010
    9
    This game is very good. It's starts kinda relaxing and when the story evolves so does the action. Great storyline and the characters are good. Good singleplayer. Intense, emotional. Love it. To bad that it's short. When you are really in the story you will see the credits already. Thankfully there is Tier1 mode and the multiplayer. So you won't get that feeling that you want more. The graphics are beautiful. Sometimes pop up, but it is not very disturbing. The scenes are very realistic and intense. Great game! 9/10 Expand
  66. Oct 17, 2010
    9
    Medal of Honor was a game I had low expectations for, I was wrong. It was a lot of fun, albit a little easy on normal by which I was able to go through with just the pistol and the knife and beat the game, still a hoot for me and my friend. The single player was great fun even if it was very short. The only reason I do not give a 10 out of 10 to this fine game is because of the Multiplayer, It is quite literally a sniper rifle fest, I had trouble with many maps because of that. I found even when we played our little game here in a realistic state and not as if we were playing gears of war we were still pretty much out gunned by sniper rifle spam and tali-ban that some how obtained weapons that they have a near 0% chance of accessing anyway. Expand
  67. Oct 17, 2010
    7
    I'm only commenting on the online play because I have not played the single player yet, but as far as on-line goes there are better fps games out there (bbc2!). After 14 hours of on-line play I can say that it has some good and some bad. First the good, the graphics are sharp, and some of the landscapes are different and neat (airfield with abandoned fighters, snowy mountian regions, etc.), the detail is good and there are several pathways in some of the maps, controls are solid, and spawn times are short. Before I state the bad I will tell you that I prefer on-line shooters that have wide open maps that you can roam around in without being killed every 10-20 seconds like BBC2 or Warhawk. In some of the maps like Helmond Valley be prepared to die quickly and often, many times as you are dead moments after spawning, for me this is no fun. Many of the maps are simply too tight and too small for my taste, they feel cramped, every time you step into the open there is a pretty good chance that it will be your last step which gets to be very frustrating, the best mode is probably the Mission mode, the capture the flag mode which I like in ither games is ridiculous, the base's, flags are so close that it is more like a frag fest than anything else. While I have logged many days and hours on MOH, BBC2, and Warhawk, I'm only an average shooter, so if you are a master shooter you will probably like this game more than I do but if you like to snipe or sneak around for the suprise attack you will not enjoy this game so much. For me BBC2 is better in almost every way, if you like the smaller maps with tight corridors then I would say that MOH is the better game to play. I look forward to playing the single player game, I understand that is pretty good but for me the on-line play is what it is all about and this one is not the best. Expand
  68. Oct 17, 2010
    5
    The ONLY thing exceptional about the campaign is the location. Give them a campaign ribbon for the slice of the modern Afghanistan battlefield. But the entire thing is so much on the rails that if you run ahead of your teammates and successfully take out the enemy, the whole program stalls leaving you with the necessity to re-laod your last checkpoint and allow your computer squadmates to "help" you. The Multi-player is just another multi-player community to get aggravated by. Tier 1 is for the lonely rather than the brave. Expand
  69. Oct 17, 2010
    4
    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.
    Expand
  70. Oct 17, 2010
    0
    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.
  71. Oct 17, 2010
    8
    The sound alone is worth the time spent going through the single-player game. I really didn't see anything horribly wrong with the graphics or anything technical that can spoil the experience otherwise. The multi-player is really enjoyable once you learn the angles. It has less of an arcade feel which is refreshing. No perks or crazy kill streaks. The maps are gritty. Fun game.
  72. Oct 17, 2010
    0
    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
  73. Oct 17, 2010
    8
    I really cant understand why this game has been rated so badly... ok it has a few bugs but what game dosn't. singleplayer is great fun and multiplayer although lacks polish is fun and engaging. it's basically like BFBC 2 multiplayer but on smaller maps. alot of fun alround
  74. Oct 16, 2010
    4
    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
  75. Oct 16, 2010
    9
    Most realistic shooter ever made, campaign mode is a little short but the tier 1 & online make up for it giving you a lot of things to do & people to kill.
  76. Oct 16, 2010
    8
    I don´t understand why the critics have rated this game only 7.5. I mean that even MW2 got something like 9.4. This game is lot better than MW2.Medal of Honor feels lot more realistic than Call Of Duty.The campaign and the multiplayer are both good.This was really a good reboot for Medal Of Honor. I hope that the next one is even better.
  77. Oct 16, 2010
    8
    This game is short and static. My first play through (Hard) took about 5 hours. If you shoot at a bottle, it won't move or break. The SP game doesn't offer AAA eye candy. The Unreal 3 engine is not the best choice for a PS3 FPS game. You'll find a lot of blurry textures, pop up shadows and objects. After all the SP Game was fun to me, but too easy to accomplish. I wouldn't buy it at the full price only for the heavily scripted single player mode full al lot of AI-less (!) Taliban. The multiplayer mode (Frostbite 2 Engine) looks much better and will offer many hours of fun to you. (But still not that remarkable) (People who call this game "the best" or "perfect" are fans of this franchise that simply want to justify their buying. Sorry.) Expand
  78. Oct 15, 2010
    6
    I love new enterprising games that have great atmosphere and try to do something new. Sadly, MOH is none of these things. Three years ago this would've been a great game but the benchmark has moved on from there and it's very high. Average graphics, no atmosphere with rocks and walls knee high you just can't jump over 'cos the game wants/funnels you to where it wants you to go. Quite linear with questionable hit detection the only two things that elevate the game from a 5 are the astonishing sounds and the online component. Online only, the game would get a 7 or 8 but there is just too many corners cut to give the full package any more. Plus no Co-op? It's disappointments like this that drives me more and more to the rental market. Expand
  79. Oct 15, 2010
    9
    First off, MOH has several bugs. Lighting can be odd at times and then suddenly fix itself, there is texture pop in at the beginning of levels in the campaign (lasts for about 3 seconds), and then there is an odd feeling to the running controls (if the left thumbstick is slightly pushed up and right, you might suddenly start strafing sideways rather than running diagonally). You'll find most of your movement really needing to be controlled heavily by the right thumbstick in ways that many other games don't do. It's very difficult to describe, but just understand that its there.
    Now, the campaign starts off rough. To me the graphics and explosions looked okay. It certainly looked like the graphics were behind the curve of things, and sometimes even looked awful. Then it was as if I started a new level and all of my issues were gone. Suddenly the lighting in the game was incredible, and at times I found myself marvelling at how realistic characters looked due to the lighting and textures. I used to live in the Middle East for a short period of time and let me tell you, some of the background scenery (not the villages, those can seem a bit generic) were downright real looking. It truly is fun to stop for a second just to look at the marvelous visuals this game can have.
    Some transitions in scenes, or from running on foot to being in a vehicle, can be rough. Other times its smooth as butter. For all the effort EA put into immersion, I can't figure out why it is that when you turn on night vision you don't see the character reach to pull down his goggles/IR sensor. Just a thought.
    **Important** Modern Warfare 2 thrived on close quarters combat, surprises around every corner, and adrenaline in every button pressed. Here, Medal of Honor presents firefights that are medium to long range shooting. This is MORE realistic because honestly, special forces troops are stupid enough to blunder into enemies in close quarter combat 24/7 like they are portrayed to do in MW2. I found the gameplay mesmerizing and I am still loving it.
    Voice Acting = Incredible. MW2 had some decent voice acting, but the sound and voice acting in MOH blows it out of the water.
    Summary: Campaign = lots of fun, but unfortunately a lot of bugs.
    Multiplayer is still establishing itself with the community, but is largely fun. Even when getting dominated the game can still be fun. When someone gets a load of killstreaks back to back, ehhh, the game isn't as much fun. For the most part the multiplayer is a blast and with friends can be incredible. Unlock system seems like it should be a tad more in depth though, and soldier management should be more developed. Gameplay is awesome though.

    Long story short, this is a game with bugs that will almost definitely be fixed in the next MOH, but none of these bugs come close to ruining the fun experience of this game. Certain elements of scripted moments in the campaign may turn people off, but that was NOT the case for me. Rent this first and see if you like it, then buy it because I honestly am getting my moneys worth out of this game right now.
    Expand
  80. Oct 15, 2010
    6
    The single player is WAY to short, it takes around 5 hours or so to complete, it has some really fun sections but most of it is the same predictable FPS gameplay that has been to death before.

    The graphics are really nicely done in the single player, the environments are realistic looking, the characters look great, the multi-player's graphics are nice but definitely a step down in the
    graphics department from the single player.

    The multi-player, i found fun for the first 6 hours or so, and then found it getting boring really fast mostly down to lack of variety, there is only 3 kit choices, 8 maps and not very many weapons to choose from.

    Personally i find most of the maps pretty dull and similar looking, i liked the airfield one the most.

    The maps encourage a lot of camping with plenty of chock points. There are loads of players using the sniper kit online due to the camping nature of the gameplay, snipers can kill you in 1 shot even without getting a head shot, that can start to get very tedious and boring. Not knowing where your getting shot from due to no kill cam doesn't help.

    To summarize it's been worth a play but has grown boring very fast, with its repetitive multi-player due to lack of variety and a very short single player with only a few stand out sections.
    Expand
  81. Oct 14, 2010
    9
    if you can look past the glaring lack of polish, this reboot can really be a value. while it doesn't add much new to game play, everything done is solid, minus the polish. the story is minimum but powerful for what it is. very authentic and emotionally powerful at the end. the campaign is varied but a tad short. however, its shooting mechanics are not cutting edge. the multi player has technical flaws but delivers a solid experience. if you're the kind of person that doesn't wince at glitches, with an interest in a authentic story, this might be the shooter for you. Expand
  82. Oct 14, 2010
    8
    Not a bad game. It does not beat Call of Duty 4 and Modern Warfare 2 but it sure matches it and does some parts better. I believe the single player experience is better here. It's basically a case of clearing a sector and proceeding to the next. In COD, you have to keep on moving forward to make the enemy stop spawning which gets quite frustrating and ridiculous. I have a problem with multiplayer. Gameplay is more tactical forcing you take cover and move carefully instead of running around like crazy in COD. But the maps are quite small and poorly designed and this results into many cases of spawn camping and raping. I believe COD still has better designed and enjoyable multiplayer maps that this one.â Expand
  83. Oct 14, 2010
    8
    What I been waiting for. was skeptical at first having read reviews. But now having played it, it is what I expected minus some polish. Single player is to be as expected, like said minus some polish. Same for multi player. Small things like pistol magazine addon model, looks unfinished for eg. I think is a good mid point between mw2 and bc2. I really enjoy the realism. Little things like ejection port on correct side. But on other hand dont think they handle quiet real enough.I like the limited weapons as in real life the coalition and "T" elements dont use a massive variety of weapons. I enjoy MP in that it is realistic as in you go from cover to cover. The play modes feel good, as there is still fronts but you can still flank. Definitely could have used a few more maps and couple of hours longer single players. I think the game was a bit of a cause of not enough time. Expand
  84. Oct 14, 2010
    10
    Medal of honor is epic! Gotta love the US military! Some of the US ranger missions are the best! The Multiplayer is absolutely mind boggling! So much adrenalin! I was sweating when playing! That says something!
  85. Oct 14, 2010
    9
    MoH takes you to the real battle zone! Enjoyed the story. Graphics could have been a little more refined, but a satisfying game overall. I'm looking forward to the sequel.
  86. Oct 14, 2010
    9
    Despite this is my first review, I've played a lot of other games before, so I know what I'm saying.

    MOH deserved a 9. Singleplayer was better than anything I've played in a while, the events and locations were all closely linked to reality. (I'm a military fan myself.) It might not be the most realistic game you've ever played if you have ever played the ARMA series, but it's close
    enough. Since Danger Close have to impress the casual players as well, but they still manage to do a good job on that as well. did an amazing job on that. Though they should have also done MP as well.

    Multiplayer, on the other hand, was more like DICE was trying to make a MW2 ver. of BC2. But what it redeemed itself back on was the multiplayer maps and gameplay. The multiplayer uses fog to blind snipers from shooting a long range kill, making the game having less snipers, Also the gameplay and map was pretty well designed, forcing Team Cooperation without having one of the teammates to say so. If you run into a decent game, you'll find out most of your teammates are sticking together most of the time. Overall, this is a game definitely worth purchasing. It just lost 1 score the singleplayer story length and the multiplayer's lack of vehicles. But this game can take over MW2's place in your heart if you just give it a try, and you'll definitely be glad you did, even if you didn't like it in the end.
    Expand
  87. Oct 14, 2010
    3
    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
  88. Oct 14, 2010
    9
    I just don't see why people give such low scores... Is it because they are COD fans? whatever .... I think this is like Uncharted2 meets COD MW2 ... It looks good and smooth and plays well ... the story grabs you So hey this is more of the same ... isn't each shooter more of the same?
    But the measure of realism has notched up some levels I think ... Just give it a chance ... and form your
    own opinion ....
    Just enjoy it!
    Expand
  89. Oct 14, 2010
    10
    Medal of honor is the most realistic game ive ever played. The graphics, the game mechanics, and the voice overs is definitely on point. War is not run and gun situations. You squeeze a couple and a couple of bodies drop and move little by little. The situations this game has never been seen in other games. This is definitely not a Modern Warfare copy cat. This game stands on its own 2. Im very pleased that MOH came back this strong. Keep up the great work you guys are doing over there. Down with COD!!! Expand
  90. Oct 13, 2010
    9
    Theres a reason why review sites gave this game average scores. Every review has the words "Modern Warfare 2" and "Call of Duty". For Christs sake, why does Call of Duty have to be a benchmark for every FPS game. Look at MW2 user score on Metacritic, then compare that to Medal of Honor. This game is great. Its a new refreshing feeling from Modern Warfare 2. You dont get OMA-DC noob tubed and commando knifed from across the map. Medal of Honor is a good game. Expand
  91. Oct 13, 2010
    10
    Great game. The speed is a little too fast but it is MUCH better than MW2 and on par with battlefield. What is going to really make or break this game as the best FPS is the future map packs. If they create decent sized maps then it will be a true winner as the best FPS to date. The sounds are amazing, graphics are on par with most other games and menus are well layed out. Cant wait to get my beard :D Expand
  92. Oct 13, 2010
    8
    This game is hands down amazing. From sounds,Visuals, and overall experience. I have not ran through the singleplayer except the first level. Ive been to stuck on Multiplayer. Yes, its Frostbite and no its not BC2. Similar yeah, but a totally new way to play. Very Tactical and thought Driven, u need to stay focused and play smart if you plan to stay alive. the guns all have a unique sound and feel to them. I love this game. True, multiplayer could be a little richer, but its a new release. And by that i mean more weapons and maps. But don't let that stop you form picking it up, because you will not regret it. I give it an 8 out of 10 easy. Trust me everyone, judge it for yourself. If you want a tactical experience with a fresh look and feel get MOH, if you want a run and gun. Go with Black Ops, my type of style is more BC2 and MOH for sure. More thought behind it. Also, you Get the Beta For Battlefield 3. You really have nothing to lose. Great Game, Best FPS for sure after Bad Company 2. Enjoy every second of it. Expand
  93. Oct 13, 2010
    8
    MOH always delivers a great story in their campaigns (unlike COD's boring stories), and this game continued that streak. The sound was simply amazing and graphics looked great. It was disappointing, however, when the game would get really buggy during a busy fight scene. I am also disappointed with the length of the campaign (way too short) and the absence of coop mode. For the multiplayer, I really wish that Danger Close could have done both the SP and MP. Although similar, MP just doesn't have the same great effects as SP. I have lost all confidence in DICE and will not be buying games they develop anymore :( Overall, the positives definitely outweigh the negatives, and I will still be playing the multiplayer for awhile (at least until black ops comes out) Expand
  94. Oct 13, 2010
    9
    This is easily one of the most underrated games of 2010; given that this is basically 2 seperate games in one package i'd like to rate the SP and MP seperately.

    SP, I would give an 9.0; and I won't state any big reasons why other than that its an excellent campaign with only a few minor technical flaws which is why I deduct one point from the score.

    MP, I would give an 8.0; the
    reason being is that it has a great foundation but it needs tweaking, also there is not quite enough maps, therefore I deduct 1 point for each flaw.

    While this is definitely not a game for everyone, if you like military games that require you to at least think about what you're doing, you'll enjoy this. I would HIGHLY recommend combat mission and objective raid multiplayer modes over team assault and sector control. The multiplayer is definitely at its best in combat mission, and objective raid is a close second.

    Overall, i'm giving this a user score of 9, simply because I feel that while I would rate the mp 8; it is getting a patch very soon which will fix a lot of the issues; and DICE did listen to some of the user issues for a day 1 patch and added things like muzzle climb and so on, because of this I feel it brings it to an overall 9.
    Expand
  95. Oct 13, 2010
    9
    I can't believe all the low scores MOH has received. This is the most fun I have had with a FPS since COD MW. The game looks incredible and the controls are tight. The campaign is a little short; around 7 hours, but it more than makes up for it with a highly compelling and submersive story. The multiplayer is one of the more realistic FPSs out. While playing the multiplayer, I felt like I was in a real battle without the chance of dying. A lot of people think, that in order to have a great multiplayer, the game must be loaded down with useless stuff like MW2. MOH is a great game and should be played by anyone who is a FPS fan. Expand
  96. Oct 13, 2010
    10
    First of all, DONT COMPARE TO CALL OF DUTY. This game is awesome it is alot like battlefield n call of duty only more..... realistic i guess is the word. Its fun and engaging the multiplayer is awesome too if you are a DICE fan theres no way its a zero or u wont like it unless your a idiot or a FANBOY like meatsmuggler i would say this is one of may fav fps of all time n deserves alot better reviews than what its got i dont think its right to compare to call of duty i saw review it as its own game because thats what it is.The shooting is smooth, the weapons are awesome, the knife sticks are the best, the graphics are great, and multiplayer rocks. The story is good but not the best of course when has a war shooter ever needed a great story. The game is awesome and deserves better. Expand
  97. Oct 13, 2010
    9
    This game it`s good and well balanced, with an amazing story and the multiplayer it`s fun. The single player campaign is better crafted and this time the character-driven narrative takes a backseat to high-action gun fights, and fast-paced interdictions.
  98. Oct 13, 2010
    7
    I was very disappointed that it was only single player in the campaign mode. Also the language is extremely vulgar and while my kids love these types of games, I will not let them play it. Other than that the graphics are okay and I would rate this game a 7 out of 10.
  99. Oct 13, 2010
    9
    I don't think the most hardcore gamers would agree with the reviews this game is receiving. And you are definitely not a hardcore gamer if your resume starts with Call of Duty and ends with Battlefield Heroes. There are way too many semi-gamers chiming in on this game that lack any real depth to their gaming experience. This game is exactly what it promised. It is gritty and much more realistic, as realistic as a game can be, it is delivery of this genre. Nothing, that comes to my mind and I have been playing games since the late 70's, comes even close. Call of Duty is an awesome game but lacked the realism you feel with Medal of Honor. The weapons the radio chatter, the environments all make you feel like you are actually there. Now I am not saying that this game is perfect, it does have a few flaws. But they are minor at best. I can say that I am a little slanted in my point of view because I am not a huge multiplayer fan, as you usually end up with a bunch of people who figure out how to cheat and make that part of most gaming a joke. That being said my opinion is based mostly on the single player side of this game, so take my review for what it is worth. But if you enjoy a good solid single player game, go get this one. You not be disappointed. Expand
  100. Oct 13, 2010
    0
    Its solid & realistic, too bad that there are too many blind COD fanboys that will smash anyhing that is not COD, I personaly had MW2 & trade it for BBC2, because I like to go for the real thing, not the COD smoke & mirrors arcade/movie feel, If you want the best of both worlds go for MOH, Its got the solid single player that is longer than MW2 & the guys at DICE did a realistic in your face Multiplayer. Collapse
Metascore
75

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
    80
    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
    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. 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.