• Summary: EALA is crafting this single-player component of this modern-day, Afghanistan-set reboot of the classic shooter series; DICE is working on the multiplayer.
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 40 out of 71
  2. Negative: 0 out of 71
  1. Oct 21, 2010
    91
    Medal of Honor is more than just a reboot of a storied franchise. It takes the FPS genre to a whole new level.
  2. Oct 21, 2010
    90
    It's hard to say how MOH will stack up against the competition but if you were on the fence know that there is an interesting and emotional single player included alongside a multiplayer offering that has enough modes and unlocks to keep things interesting for some time.
  3. Oct 25, 2010
    72
    While the multiplayer feels more like a justifying bullet point on the box for a full priced retail game, the single player experience is what makes this reboot shine despite its short length. Medal of Honor isn't something I consider a must buy but definitely deserves a once over.

See all 71 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 67 out of 113
  2. Negative: 29 out of 113
  1. In my opinion medal of honor is one of the most under rated games of 2010. The campaign was pretty bad but that doesn't matter. The multiplayer is some of the best i've ever played. Also it is probably the most realistic war game you'll find. How ever if your more of a fan of the run and gun kind of shooters: Call off duty, halo, gears of war, etc. Medal of honor is more of tacticle shooter if you know what i mean. For example you have to think you don't just run into a building thinking theres a 50/50 chance of killing the enemy. Let's say your playing combat mission and the defenders seem to have you pinned down. You have to think about how your going to advance. For example tell someone to respawn and get in the tank. Once the tank shows up take cover behind it while it moves up. You have to think about what your going to do or else you will most likely suck at this game. Now i'm sure some people don't like this game and there is a very small number of people that DO like this game which is very unfortunate because in my opinion this is one of the best multiplayer shooters of the past 2 year and dare i say it i think this game is wayyy better then black ops. Overall I think people should give this game a chance instead of reading 1 **** review of the game and saying screw that game ill find something else. Expand
    • 3 of 3 users said yes
  2. Boring campaign that features repetitive and boring mission objectives, Multiplayer is limited to 4 boring modes and very few maps. Add in a combat system that takes a grind to get use to and you have yourself a pathetic reboot. Expand
    • 2 of 2 users said yes
  3. I'm dividing this review into two parts: single player (5 points) and muliplayer (5 points). Single Player (4/5 points) The single player campaign is pretty good. It has a variety of missions, no real controller-throwing moments and a decent storyline. It is, however, criminally short at perhaps 4-6 hours to complete the campaign on the hard difficulty level. It is also insanely easy. Even on the hardest difficulty level I rarely died or was even in any danger of dying. There is a "Tier 1" mode which ups the difficulty and also changes the rules: you get no checkpoints (so dying restarts the level) and your stats (completion time, etc.) are tracked for awards. It's more of a game mode than a difficulty level and is a nice twist on the "veteran level" Call of Duty Modern Warefare challenge. Achievements are handed out like a movie tie-in game so you'll easily grab more than half the 1000 GS on a single playthough with maybe a few cleanup missions after you've played the campaign. Multiplayer (0/5) Multiplayer is a complete mess. As it has been largely unplayable on day 1, I give it zero stars for unprofessionalism. If my experiences with DICE and EA serve, it will be about a month before multiplayer works properly. I was able to get into some games right after midnight and my experiences were pretty 'meh'. The entire experience seems rushed and stripped down. Gameplay is entirely team based; with team deathmatch, area control and two objective destroy gametypes. All except one of the objective destroy gametypes (combat mission) have VERY small maps and games tend to be short. There is an upgrade system that isn't very exciting. You unlock few new guns and most of your "upgrades" are things like better scopes. I've never really understood the idea behind giving players superior weapons as they improve. Not only do the more experienced players know the maps, but they also get better equipment giving them an extra advantage on the battlefield. Multiplayer was also very, very laggy, even in games with only a few people. Snipers are also the class to be in this game, so if being murdered from afar by campers is not your style, you might want to stay away. Keep in mind that this is one of the EA "online pass" games, so you'll need to buy a code for $10 to play online if you buy the game used or rent. Overall, I'd say that the single player is worth a rental but the multiplayer is a pass. Stick to better games like Battlefield Bad Company 2, Halo 3/Reach or Call of Duty Modern Warfare. If you need a new MP game, the next CoD comes out in November so you might want to wait for that. The combination of rubbish EA servers and DICE netcode are not worth your $60. Expand
    • 8 of 14 users said yes

See all 113 User Reviews