User Score
6.7

Mixed or average reviews- based on 266 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 54 out of 266

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Oct 12, 2010
    4
    HEADS UP: For fans of DICE style multiplayer you may be disappointed. The maps are small...most online matches involve Benny Hill style battles in which two teams circle one or two buildings for the entire match match. So far (after close to 2 hours of online play) I have not seen any vehicles, not even a bicycle. No squads thus far. I was (foolishly) hoping that the multiplayer and single player will be on separate disks but they are both crammed into one...an ill omen from the start. It saddens me to see DICE create this CoD clone. I think that maybe the DEVs thought because CoD was so popular that its multiplayer was the ideal? I would like to make the point that not everything that is hyped up and popularized should be thought of that way. You only need to research 'Pet Rocks' to understand this. That's what I think about this game thus far...this is DICE's attempt to develop their own brand of 'Pet Rock' . Expand
  2. Oct 12, 2010
    10
    This is an excellent game,for the those people who are used to the Call OF Duty series this is a welcome change.The first thing that jumps out at you is how believable they make the story seem,The sound in the game is awesome every voice chatter every footstep it's just well done,the graphics are very good the detail in things like the sand and environmental damage is excellent, cut scenes look beautiful and the characters look and behave realistic. I haven't gone online yet but it should be good nonetheless.Overall MOH does not disappoint. Expand
  3. Oct 12, 2010
    9
    The game play aspect conventionally depicts the norm of the modern day shooter. Controls are tight and responsive, with nothing new to add nor change to the FPS feel. Online play is lag free with minor freezes here and there-nothing a patch couldn't fix. The ranking from level-to-level is weak at best, but suffice nonetheless its formula is convincingly addicting given that at the lowest of level your guns are weakened by its range and accuracy whereas at the higher end of the spectrum you own pawnage amongst your enemies. If you like BFBC and Modern Warfare 1, then this game should be for you. Expand
  4. Oct 12, 2010
    10
    this game is great. I feel sorry for the landscape of first person shooters if any game that is not Cod, Battlefield or Halo gets this much hate thrown its way. This game is action packed from the second you start the match. Battlefield is great but can be slow at times. Cod is great but there is way to much camping. This game seems to keep action flowing very nicely and make it really believable as well. tsk tsk tsk to all of you out there who are poopooing this game. If you would like a great, action-packed game and are not afraid to play something that doesn't have battlefield, Call of Duty, or Halo in the title, then by all means pick up Medal of Honor: you won't be sorry that you did. Expand
  5. Oct 12, 2010
    4
    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
  6. Oct 12, 2010
    3
    I was confident enough and stupid enough to purchase this game without renting it first this morning. The multiplayer felt like Battlefield Bad Company 2 except with smaller maps and more chances for campers to take you out quickly and easily as soon as you spawn, or if you're lucky, 15 seconds later. Movements throughout the map felt quick yet somehow clunky. The movements were responsive, but I still kept running into obstacles throughout the map though I thought i was clear of them. That observation may seem trivial but an annoyance factor builds quickly as it keeps happening. Moh tries to be more like mw2 instead of bfbc2 by decreasing the size of the maps and attempting to quicken the pace of the games. Instead, Moh simply feels like bfbc2 confined to fractional portions of larger maps. The lack of a prone option might not bother many bfbc2 or halo lovers, but when i played MoH, the need for prone felt very necessary. The reason for this is because there are just too many ways for other players to take you out from a distance because many times, there isn't sufficient cover nearby for you to fully duck your head under. So, instead of being able to get down as far as possible when needed, I kept getting my head taken off by snipers or users with low-recoil automatics from far away. Those are my main issues with MoH. I didn't play it long because I just got irritated with it too quickly. My advice is to rent it first and see if you like it before buying it, but you all are probably smart enough to figure that out for yourselves. Expand
  7. Oct 12, 2010
    8
    The game is what one would expect. Fun multiplayer with action packed single player. It has some issue, and balance needs to be tweaked. The MP maps have lots of choke points which makes firefights fun. Hopefully they add more maps to help compete with other titles.
  8. Apr 17, 2011
    8
    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
  9. Oct 12, 2010
    10
    Awesome game, just finished playing several hours on multiplayer and about an hour on single player. All I can say is "don't listen to the haters" (especially COD fanboys, employees and the like). The game is great on so many levels...especially it's realism. Can't put my finger on it but it feels like you're actually in combat. Definitely a buy in my books.
  10. Nov 12, 2010
    0
    had it two days to suffice me before black ops and it sucked, i got everything out of it the first 30 minutes then it was stale from there...hooray for black ops!
  11. Oct 12, 2010
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I'm going to assume that most of you who play military FPS shooters play COD:MW. If so, MOH can be a little jarring to play. This isn't necessarily bad, but change can be hard and especially hard if what you're changing to isn't as good or polished at what you're used to. That being said, the MOH reboot is (from the 5 or so hours I've put into it so far) a solid, above average FPS. I'll break this review down into single and multi-player since they are really two distinct parts of this game coming from two different developers. Which, by the way, might not have been the best route for this game.

    SINGLE PLAYER: The graphics are very good, if you care about that. The atmosphere created is excellent. I really like the night vision mode as it looks authentic, actually better than MW's version. They really nailed the sparkling snow patches in this game haha. There can be a few really ugly technical glitches here and there. At the very start of one level, you are prone and staring up at a goat. For me, said goat was loaded as a blurry mess of textures that looked like it belonged in an N64 game. The proper textures took like five seconds to load and this really killed the immersion factor. Also, when you go to look into the sights of the lazing gun, the textures are absolutely ugly. The cut scenes are cool but the faces can look a little weird. Overall though, animations are great and the game just looks really good. Sound is on point too. There is a lot of authentic military chatter and spats of humor thrown in the dialog. Weapons and explosions sound good if not a little muffled. I enjoyed the music and it wasn't intrusive or repetitive. Controls are responsive and not very different from MW. The ability to peak up and around corners is a really nice added feature that's lacking from MW. You can also slide into cover which works well most of the time. A quick double tap of the Y button switches to your pistol which has unlimited rounds and is always available, pretty nice. I'll also say that the way you character moves is more realistic than MW and I actually like the way it feels. It's less arcade-like and cements you in the environment a bit better. One big problem with the gameplay is the AI. I like a challenge so I put it on Hard but even still, the game is too easy. I only died a handful of times. (Haven't tried the Tier 1 mode yet so hopefully the challenge will be there). Enemy movement is predictable and pretty dumb most of the time. Your squad mates sometimes will get in your line of sight too, taking multiple rounds to the head and retorting with "I'm on YOUR side." The story is not very well developed. Neither are the interesting looking and sounding characters you play with. Overall, I'd give the SINGLE PLAYER an 8 out of 10 based on my impressions thus far.

    MULTI-PLAYER: In a word, unpolished. Again, if you are coming from MW, you will probably get frustrated and bored with this quickly. Really, honestly...you will. It simply feels limited in scope and execution compared with MW in terms of design and overall look and feel. The graphics are not as good as single player and colors are muted. I found it difficult to tell friend from foe and often lost enemy in the background. It seems most maps are small (there's only 8 built in) and you can't even play all of the game types (there's only 5 of those built in) on all of the maps. So, play variety suffers from that. I dunno, it's just missing that polish and structure that makes MW so addicting. A year later and I'm still looking forward to player MW2 online. MOH won't put it's hooks into you like that. Now to be fair, I haven't logged but a couple of hours here so I'm reserving final judgement for later. But first impressions are important and I just didn't have FUN with the multi-player here like I do in MW. Plus, with Black Ops on the way, I really can't see MOH establishing itself as a dominant player in the online console FPS wars. Let's be honest, Black Ops is going to tear MOH a new one from what has been shown thus far. It's kind of not fair because COD is such a juggernaut at this point...whether it's coming from Infinity Ward or Treyarch, COD will dominate the charts for the foreseeable future. So, based on all that I'd give the MULTI-PLAYER a 4 out of 10.

    My recommendation is to Game Flay or rent MOH. If this game existed in a military FPS vacuum with no competition, it would be an excellent game. But reality is different, and while it's a solid effort, the sum of the parts just doesn't add up to greatness. I can understand the business and technical reasons behind separating the single and multi player development but the end result has proven disappointing. Buy this if you have the extra cash and need something different to tide you over until Black Ops. Otherwise, keep practicing on MW2 (don't camp or use the noob tube).
    Expand
  12. Oct 12, 2010
    9
    Buy the game! There is a conspiracy against MOH. If you like realistic war games, great sound (if you have surround sound) and good graphics with a very believable story you will not be disappointed.
  13. Oct 13, 2010
    9
    First off....let us get something straight.....I was under the distinct impression that Reviews were to objective to the specific title that it was reviewing, and not comparing it to a predetermined benchmark. This isn't CoD or BFBC2, it is it's own distinct creation. CoD fans aren't going to like it because it's not CoD, and BFBC2 Fans aren't going like it because it doesn't do the same things as BFBC2 do...but that doesn't mean it's a bad game, or one that can't be enjoyed by the people playing it. I am a big fan of FPS and each of these titles have good points and bad points. But I am not going to compare this product to either because it's not supposed to be the same as the other titles.
    In short, the Single player is short. The Graphics are superb, and the audio is outstanding. The Multiplayer makes online gaming fun by putting everyone on a fairly level playing field for Newbies and Veterans alike. Action is quick and the audio is amazing. The graphics are very good, but toned down, I believe to prevent things like lagging in a smoke screen, etc.
    Overall I really like this game and would recommend it to anyone who like FPS....but note...this isn't CoD nor BFBC2........so don't expect either.
    Expand
  14. Oct 12, 2010
    9
    MOH is a great reboot of the series. SP is intense, and truely depicts what war is like for our soldiers, rather than being a Hollywood styled Micheal Bay movie. Missions are all varied and intense, the first Ranger mission is just intense. It may be short, but its a lot of fun, and really well done by Danger Close.

    MP is too very intense, and very well done. Has some minor issues
    that Im sure DICE will address, but other than that, its great and addictive. Dont expect this to be a MW 2 clone, because its not. Unlike in MW 2, you need tactics, and a brain to win, even in TDM. Class system is pretty well done, and the maps are pretty well too. This is def one of the better MP games to come out this year. Doesnt top BC 2, but its still great Expand
  15. Oct 12, 2010
    3
    Medal of honor is a game that suffers from its desire to be "better" than its competition, despite copying nearly all of its game mechanics from these games. It's a game that is weaker than the sum of its parts, and DICE's effort in multiplayer seems half-assed compared to Battlefield: Bad Company 2. It also attempts to mimic Modern Warfare 2, but it doesn't implement the gameplay mechanics nearly as well. The single player campaign is ok, but the story is uninteresting and feels like a completely separate experience from the multiplayer, rather than all one game. My recommendation? Skip or rent, you won't be playing this for very long. Expand
  16. Oct 12, 2010
    10
    Just Played an Hour of it, and love the single player campaign. Multiplayer is amazing to, maps are well done. If you like COD or Battlefield this is a game for you
  17. Oct 13, 2010
    8
    This game is a good mix of Battlefield and Call of Duty. The Campaign is good with a good story line but has some minor technical issues. You can tell they spent more time with the multiplayer then they did with the campaign. The multiplayer needs to have a few more game modes and maps which I am sure will come later. If you like modern FPS then you will like this game unless you are a Call of Duty fan boy and that's the only game you play. Expand
  18. Oct 13, 2010
    10
    I'm not sure what it is that causes people to seem to only play few of the game types before they decide to criticize a new game, but reading some of the other reviews I can only guess that is what they have done in MoH's case.

    I spent some time last night trying out all the various game types the game has to offer, and I feel the need to to correct a few things I've seen people "mark
    points off" for. Number one. There are small maps, there are medium maps, and there are large maps. The large maps can be found on objective type games types such as "combat mission" where the map seems to ever expand.

    Number two. Though there are no longer "squads" like in BFBC2, if you are on the attacking side of objective based missions, you can pick whether you wish to re-spawn on the front line or back at the base, though not as clean as squad spawns, this serves its purpose well.

    Number Three. There is a M3A3 in some missions, though its use is thankfully limited to the "attacking" team and can be disposed of rather quickly with good strategies. All in all, it isn't MW2, and it isn't BFBC2. This is a nitty-gritty more realstic FPS. There is nothing wrong with having those in a game, but MoH doesn't include any fantasy "perks" (Heartbeat sensors in MW2, and repair tools in BFBC2 ring a bell?) MoH is a hardcore FPS that brings a few of us back to the days when Call of Duty was about shooting straight and knowing good strategy and less about perks and titles
    Expand
  19. Oct 13, 2010
    4
    One word sums up this game, 'Play Groups' What is a play group? Im not 6 years old or a porn star so this term really bothers me. Im pretty sure there are squads fighting in Afghanistan. The substitution of squads (and lack of squad play) with Play Groups is one of an ongoing list of problems I have with the multiplayer in Medal of Honor. No squad spawning or squad play. The small tight maps are only suitable for sniper camping, mortar camping and dying quickly. The lack of upgrades and rubber toy handguns suck (no seriously, you can do more damage throwing the handgun at your target). After a few hours of on-line play I actually wished I was playing Bad Co.2. Iâ Expand
  20. Oct 12, 2010
    5
    Too disappointed for much regurgitated diatribe here, folks...this game had all the marketing of a COD rival, yet all the substance of an old system's castoff. The multiplayer is abysmal; as if all the fun was ripped from its soul by attempting to merge two successful formulas from other multiplayers previous to MOH. Like a bad collegiate term paper, though the plagiarism seemed easy to hide in the concept, the execution and read exposed the fraud, and it is in the gameplay and true lack of character, much like a true cheat. DICE should be ashamed to put their stamp on their side of the game (multi), but the campaign is decent if you are a true Department Of Defense or PMC junkie. This title is not worth the money as a campaign stand alone, nor any time wasted in the multiplayer that lacks any real excitement or sense of accomplishment and camaraderie. Collapse
  21. Oct 13, 2010
    8
    I have never written a review on Metacritic before, but I decided that I had to take the time to create an account and post this one because of the absolutely unfair whipping this game seems to be taking from both review sites and readers.
  22. Nov 15, 2011
    6
    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.
  23. Oct 19, 2010
    6
    Its good but not great. for starters the guns are underpowered. it took me longer than usual to kill wide open AI. my favorite part of the game is the campaign even though it is a little short. i was really looking forward to the multiplayer but it was pretty bad in the end. mainly because of the respawning. if yo really wanted to feel good DICE multiplayer just play battlefield 2.
  24. Oct 12, 2010
    3
    The game is very glitchy in single-player. Be sure to load your last checkpoint if you decide to go anywhere in the level where you could quite possibly become frozen/stuck in a tiny corner of a hallway or rooftop. Just imagine Battlefield Bad Company 2 without squads, game modes, the story, firepower or vehicles. I gave this game a rating of 3 because it does have a few redeeming qualities such as the easy trophies & the free Medal of Honor Frontline PS2 game/Battlefield 3 Beta. Expand
  25. Oct 12, 2010
    7
    EA knows how to make a compelling single-player game. Unfortunately, some of the mechanics, like sliding into cover and leaning around a corner, aren't carried over into the multi-player. And that's a shame. After playing the single player for a little bit i was pretty jazzed about getting into the online, but the online is just a poor man's Call of Duty. I recommend it if you have a PS3 to get the special version of Medal of Honor Frontline, its a welcome blast from the past. If you only play single player, then this is tight up your alley. But, if you have an 360, wait for Black Ops or keep on playing Reach. Expand
  26. Oct 12, 2010
    10
    How can people say that call of duty is amazing and this game isn't? The graphics are atleast an 8. The story is a 7 but good. The multiplayer is a 9 (it may not be perfect but it is fun). And the replay value is a 10 because it can easly add up to 24 hours of gameplay. this game deserves nothing less than an 8 if you like FPS's. Think about it.
  27. Oct 12, 2010
    8
    MOH is a great game for people who like war games
  28. Oct 13, 2010
    10
    Excellent voice acting and pace of the singleplayer game make it an intense and wild ride. Multiplayer by DICE is the best of both Battlefield and MW2 wrapped into one. Great total package!
  29. Oct 13, 2010
    10
    This is a solid game. Don't let anyone tell you differently. The Single Player is a little short, but it is very fun! Tier 1 mode is very difficult! On to multiplayerr now (My favorite). The MP is crafted by DICE and is AMAZING! I can log hour upon hour and still crave another match! I suspect I will be playing this multiplayer until battlefield 3!
  30. Oct 15, 2010
    9
    I honestly don't understand the harshly negative reviews I've seen! The single player campaign, though not as over the top as a COD title was solid and very well crafted. It's unfolding storyline really makes you feel like you're part of the tier 1 crew (as if you've been for years). The ranger portions are also great and really help breakup the feel nicely. The vehicle portions are also refreshing and exciting to play. The MP side of the game is also pretty fun once you get into it. Definitely feels more like a classic FPS where it's not all run and gun, snipers are a part of the mix but a good player knows how to counter that. I actually enjoy the fact that I have to think about running out in the open. Feel way more real. Again not as over the top arcadey as COD but there should be space in the marketplace for both because both can provide hours of fun.

    This is by far NOT a bad game! Though not perfect but It's a great first step back for MOH and I would recommend it (and have) to anyone who would like more FPS options on Xbox Live.
    Expand
  31. Oct 16, 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.
    Expand
  32. Oct 23, 2010
    0
    I'm so disgusted they can charge this much for such a terrible glitchy game. I've only played the single player and you cant help but notice the lack of realism, they have attempted to make this game feel realistic but your constantly reminded of the shocking AI and bismol gameplay. The graphics on one particular level would just draw right in front of my eyes! - teleporting teammates? The glitches gets you stuck if you want to explore - infinite ammo. You can't even jump over rocks! - my god. EA well done. (Clap Clap Clap) Expand
  33. Nov 11, 2010
    10
    This Game Is Aweesooommmmeeeeeeeeee! Better Than Some Of the CoD's And The GAmeplay IS Awesome The Campaign Is Just Brilliant And Online Is Decent BUt Altogether It Is Really Goooood.
  34. Feb 16, 2011
    10
    Its a shame that nowadays the CoD franchise has blinded the gamers of the modern day, the FPS is now a shell of its former self. Before CoD, an FPS used to be a thing of beauty they required skill to play, campers were non existent and you had to have an IQ above 30. The inane dribble that spews out of the corporate mouth of Activision known as Call of Duty has tarnished the name of the FPS forever. These games that are thrown at gamers every year are nothing more than a marketing and moneymaking scheme by the greedy fat cats of Activision to make millions of dollars...correction: BILLIONS of dollars...from the gamers of America who don't know any better, and now whenever a good game comes along that even remotely resembles a CoD game these ignorant people spread forth a web of hate that discourages anyone who might be even remotely interested in buying the game. Medal of Honor is one of these games, a great game that got put down because of all the Call of Duty fanatics who were probably just too bad at the game to give it a good review. Its not like Call of Duty at all so STOP comparing it to it because i have some news for you... FPS games set in the modern time are going to happen and just because the RPG looks similar... WHAT do you want it to look like? A kitten? a train? take your pick there's lots of random objects we can make it look like. Or because the game includes the M14 or the M4A1 does not mean ts a CoD knock off. These games are genuinely good and have actually had some significant thought and programming time put into them. These games are not released every year like some games *cough* Call of Duty *cough* with not thought or possible innovative technique included, but the same game repackaged over and over again with a different venue. Medal of Honor requires a amount of skill that CoD gamers do not understand, the cover in these games is not for show you ACTUALLY NEED TO USE IT!!!!!!!! OMG SHOCK OMG!!!! yeah you cant run around like Rambo Jesus tanking bullets to the face and somehow manage to kill everyone shooting at you with a quick burst of blind fire. MoH requires tactics and skill the 2 things call of duty does not require, and that is the reason that this game gets put down. Its a Damn shame that a game as good as this one gets wasted. If you not blinded by the CoD sickness and can still tell good from bad go pick this game up, you wont be disappointed. Expand
  35. Oct 15, 2010
    8
    A very very good game. Not as deep as I thought it would be - Depth as in, what COD:MW 2 had or BF:BC 2 had. But still... very fun and very realistic. Single player campaign is short which isn't a good thing but DICE makes it all up for Multiplayer. :)
  36. Oct 14, 2010
    3
    MOH is a game that falls behind on all aspects. If this game was released about 3 years ago, I can see it being a big hit, but releasing the game after COD MW and COD MW2 just looks bad. They try very hard to do what was already done and they fall short. Playing the game you can tell where they cut a lot of corners. I'm just not impressed at all. Unfortunately, this is a typical EA game where they release prematurely. EA just doesn't seem to learn from their mistakes. They see $ signs over quality. I can honestly say that this will be my last purchase from this franchise. I honestly played about 2 hours of the game and i do not want to continue. Shame on EA. Expand
  37. Oct 20, 2010
    0
    It tries too hard to be Modern Warfare 2 and Bad Company 2 and it fails at both. 4 hour campaign and the multiplayer is fun for maybe 30 minutes. Contender for worst game of the year.
  38. Dec 10, 2010
    5
    I think it's only fair that I first begin with what the game does relatively well: the single player campaign. To start, yes, it is indeed extremely short, and when I say that, I mean it's even shorter than any COD campaign I've ever played. You will easily finish the game on Hard difficulty easily under 3 hours. Aside from that, I think that the campaign was extremely well done. Fighting al-Qaeda terrorists is a nice change instead of fighting against Nazis, Vietcong, or imaginary Russian ultra-nationalist forces. The levels are all very good, but in my opinion, there were none that actually wowed me. The story isn't that enthralling, but it keeps a nice pace and some of the cinematics were basically awesome. Voice-acting is excellent, and the characters are mostly likable. One problem I did have with the campaign is that the directions were very poor at times. I would be playing a level, have to turn away to do something for literally 1 second, look at my screen again, and there's no one around. All of my companions have proceeded without me, and the objectives don't help with where to go to next. However, this only happened a few times and wasn't game breaking. Overall, I enjoyed the single player. Now let's move on to what EA clearly concentrated on the most: the multiplayer. Never have I played a game that has made me want to actually go back to playing COD, until now. If you think COD sucks, than this game will make it seem like it's the godliest FPS on the face of the earth. It strives to be Battlefield and COD, but succeeds at neither. When you're playing a 12v12 team deathmatch on a map that could barely contain a 6v6, the spawn killing starts to wear on your nerves. Everyone, and I literally mean everyone, snipes. This is because sniping is a total cakewalk, and you could easily hit an enemy the entire distance of a Battlefield-sized map without even trying. Essentially, snipers are overpowered. Another thing that I question EA on, is why they would remove weapon recoil. I understand that there is some, but you will hardly notice when you press the trigger down on your AK-47 and land every bullet at a sniper's distance away. Support actions (AKA killstreaks), are also extremely imbalanced as well. As soon as you land that first missile killstreak, the rest just fall into your lap because you have spawn killed the same people 10 times over with an explosion reminiscient to that of a nuke. The guns all essentially shoot the same, with the two basics being fully automatic weapon and sniper, as well as the rare shotgun. The physics on the game are absolutely terrible, and hitbox has a ten foot span around your character, making it easy to hit all enemies with any gun. The unlocks on all of the weapons are boring, and have very little effect on how your gun behaves, except for the scopes on your sniper rifles. The maps are all dull and one-sided, with one team spawning on a side with a huge cover advantage. They also have very little variety, with two of them being city ruins, and the rest being some jihadist village ruin. However, through all of the darkness, there is a bit of light at the end. The sound effects are amazing, and it really makes you feel like you're caught up in an intense gunfight. Overall, the multiplayer can be fun at times (rarely), but mostly makes you want to eject your disc and pee all over it. Very big letdown, and if you're looking for a break from COD, look elsewhere. Expand
  39. Oct 20, 2010
    8
    SP: 80%

    Good - Still has the traditional MoH feel, like a Disney ride with violence. You are stuck following specific tracks but it is designed like that for a purpose. Story telling is very good and keeps the player interested. It is not just a run and gun FPS which is a nice change of pace. Graphics are good (gun detail esp) and environments seem realistic. Also I like being able to ask
    your teammates for mags when you run dry. One thing I did notice that I appreciate is sighting from hip to iron sights. When you center the crosshair in hip mode on an object then change to iron sights you are no longer centered. The devs took into account that there is a difference between your barrel position off the hip compared to optics.

    Bad - Occasional graphics issues. Had a goat not render until after I passed it and jitters once in a while. Team AI will nag you for not keeping up when you are standing next to them. Dialog lags if you run through map faster then the pace set for the story.

    MP: 80%

    Good - Fast action in DM and team action needed in other modes. Has a feel of BF conquest but fast action of CoD. The MP almost seems like a hybrid. Trying to compare to either CoD and BF is impossible as MoH doesn't appear to have been dev'd to kill either. More of another option for players. Kids might not care for MoH since the MP is not just run and gun (especially in team work modes). Also having 12 snipers doesn't benefit you as compared to BFBC2 and noob tubers are not an issue like COD. Contrary to BS reviews there is recoil on the larger weapons and bullet drop should not be an issue in the maps provided. Since most the maps are small (few hundred yards across) and a properly zeroed M16/M4 should have little drop to 300 meters (about 1000 ft) BD should not be a factor. Especially with the sniper rifles or battlefield rifles due to their muzzle velocity. If the map sizes change to BF standards then BD should be a factor. As of now it is just IMO a way for a reviewer to knock the game.

    I really like the option to obtain either offensive OR defensive perks after kill streaks. Sure mortar attacks are fun but putting armor on all of your team is a great way to tick off the enemy for the whole match.

    Bad - Team making is limited to a party of 4. All maps are on the small size and there is a need for 1 or 2 large maps.

    Overall, I am happy with the purchase and really, really enjoyed online play. It will definitely keep me busy until BFBC:Vietnam.

    IMO most reviewers now either have an agenda or are attempting to seem more sophisticated then they really are. Like Mafia 2 reviewers comparing it to GTA. Mafia 2 is not a sandbox game nor was it marketed as one. Just like MoH is the latest gen of MoH and not CoD or BF. Different creatures all together.
    Expand
  40. Oct 13, 2010
    8
    This is probably one of the most misread games by critics that I have seen yet. Medal of Honor stays true to its objective of trying to bring the current Afghanistan conflict to your gaming console. The feel of the game is more realistic to actual combat engagement, which some will like, and others will think of the men and women that are protecting us now and cringe, that is the point. This game brings out some emotion in the player. There is some repetitiveness throughout the campaign and I agree that character development is limited, but still fun to play and well worth the money. The multiplayer campaign is very good but it is no COD Modern Warfare II. While this game is not a real challenger to COD Franchise, it is a decent game that any FPS fan should not miss. Expand
  41. Oct 13, 2010
    9
    This is a solid shooting game. The campaign while short is immersive, and has some intense firefights. It made me feel like I was at war. You have to play it on hard, if you want any kind of challenge. You can then replay it on tier one mode, which gives it replay value. The campaign is the best one I have ever played. Now, the multiplayer looks and plays good, but is brutal and unforgiving. It may turn some people off, and they may curse it's name. But it is well done over all, not the best ever but if you love shooters you should like it somewhat. Give it a rent to see if it is your cup of tea. The maps are somewhat small, and snipers are dominant. There are only 8 maps at launch, but there will be more coming soon. This game does not have a lot of bells and whistles,but it is a solid game overall. The single player alone makes it worthy of a rental, but decide for yourself if the multiplayer is your kind of game. I think a lot of the negative feelings people have for the multiplayer is due to not getting used to the brutality of the game, learning the maps, and the weapons, and the lack of all the extras games give players these days. This game certainly does not suck, but it's not the most addictive game I have ever played. Expand
  42. Oct 16, 2010
    0
    the worst game I have never have.
    on line game: weapon like guns can kill you as sniper from a very large distance, maps too small, series of kills impossible to have
    single player: you have to follow only the path of main mission and you haven't no time to explore the maps, sounds and different velocity of quad is no sense.
    i will sell my game to wait call of duty black ops
    medal of
    honour score zero 0 Expand
  43. Oct 16, 2010
    1
    This is got to be the biggest disappointment for first person shooters this year to date. The SP isn't that bad, but the MP, which I was looking forward to really isn't that good. If I wanted to play Battlefield 2 I would have just played that, thankfully I only rented this game rather than buying it. The graphics are good, but you can hardly see anybody unless you are sitting there camping. I can't say enough about how bad the re-spawns are in this game, basically on top of each other and you just keep getting blasted by artillery strikes and mortar strikes killing your whole team two or three times in seconds. Lets hope that Black OPs isn't a let down. Expand
  44. Oct 16, 2010
    4
    In regards to the Single Player piece. Glitchy screens happened periodically throughout the game. guns weren't that cool; used only 2 guns to beat the game. took me less than 10 hours to complete and i was not craving more. I still can't understand "partner lift." You're a freaking navy seal/army ranger and you still need help from your partner to get up a 6 foot wall. it just slowed down a game i was all ready to be over. Expand
  45. Oct 17, 2010
    3
    Please read this before you spend a penny on this game!!

    I want to start by saying that if I hadn't bought this already intending to trade it in next week for fallout new Vegas I would be writing a letter of complaint to the makers rather than a review.
    Medal of Honor is a hard game to give a balanced review of because it feels more like two separate games in one package, which normally
    would be good, but unfortunately this isn't two for the price of one but rather one quarter for the price of one.
    The single-player campaign took me under four hours to complete on medium only dying twice, this is not an attempt at boasting as I consider myself an average fps player but rather a warning of how short and unchallenging the single player is. What is even more frustrating is that I attribute one of my two deaths to be due to a sloppy collision box making it impossible for me to shoot the enemy before he shot me, unfortunately this is not where the frustration ends. Something else you will have to get used to in the single player is your allied AI making the decision to run right into your firing line only to then stop in the middle of a battle to turn round and tell you off for shooting him which rather spoils the mood to say the least. This is not to say the single player is without its good moments, from time to time it is visually lush, the use of music to built pressure in certain scenes is cleverly done, and this game does set it's self apart from it competitors by really forcing an emotional connection between you and the soldiers you fight with (until they do something stupid). However none of this makes up for spending £40 to buy a game that I could have rented for £5 and had the same experience.
    So after feeling severely ripped off by the single-player I turned my attention to the multi-player in the hope that it might redeem this otherwise under polished demo length game, and yet again I was seriously let down. The multi-player tries to sit somewhere between the fast paced action of call of duty and the more tactical combat of battlefield bad company two and as a result comes out as being massively less than the sum of its parts. The unlock tree revels it's self to be so sparse that I feel no drive to work for that next rank as the unlock that comes with it is pointless, as other reviewers have pointed out there is one vehicle in all of multi-player, and despite having multiple mode of play none of them are original and in each case other games do them better. There is a clear sense that this game would benefit from another six months play-testing as most of the maps give one side such distinct terrain advantages that if you are on the unlucky team you've lost before the match begins, one map in particular starts one team off with a high ground position overlooking the enemy's spawn point that has an ammo crate ready so all you need do is sit there with a heavy mg and keep shooting and you've won. This is just one example of how this game constantly rewards camping behaviour in almost all circumstance, this may be painting me as some rambo player who always charges into gun fire but that is not the case, its just after two nights playing this it seems the only way to get a good score is to sit with a shotgun aimed at a doorway and hope for the best, because leaving cover without smoke is suicide. The last thing I will say on multi-player before wrapping up this rant that I originally intended to be a balanced review is why used a separate game engine that has been design to accommodate destructible terrain if you're only planning on making the certain fences blow up, especially when a shrub seems to count as hard cover!
    Right to finish up, I've changed my mind I am going to write a letter to the makers as well as post a negative review. The single player gets a 3 out of ten for being OKish but shorter than any 800 point downloadable I've played, and the multi-player also gets a generous 3 because as well as being shoddy and hugely unbalanced, it does nothing to distinguish itself from its competitors and shows a massive lack of original thinking. I implore you do not spend more than £10 on this game.
    Expand
  46. Oct 17, 2010
    9
    I really enjoyed this game a lot more than I assumed I would. I went in it with pretty low expectations, hearing some negative things about it. I guess it's good to go into a game with low hopes, that way you're pleasantly surprised when it's enjoyable. Anyway, the campaign was short (clocked in at just under 6 hours for me) but very fun to play. I never got bored during the missions, and variety kept me coming back for more. The guns feel amazing to shoot, I would say this is the games biggest advantage. I would even go so far as to say as far as the feel of the guns, this wins over Call of Duty (whoa! I know!)

    I only dabbled in the multiplayer, I found it to be enjoyable as well. The UI and Matchmaking for MoH need some work, but I enjoyed it....I found it very similar to Battlefield Bad Company 2.
    Expand
  47. Oct 17, 2010
    10
    this game is great i think it is better than call of duty single player but the only thing that spoils it are two major bugs that occur in the story mode to the people who are moaning about the multiplayer graphics the engine couldent handle multiplayer a couple of times in the single player it seriously struggles to keep up and slows down when there is alot of action thats why they used the battlefield engine. Expand
  48. Oct 18, 2010
    8
    Do not listen to those saying fans of DICE's mulitplayer will be disappointed. This is a different experience than what we are accustomed to on consoles and honestly that is the only difference. The smaller maps provide a hectic but strategic element to our usual shooters and I've never had more fun. The single player campaign is short but worth almost every second. Some reviews put this game down, I don't understand why, I'm with those people in looking forward to Black Ops, but Medal of Honor should not be missed and will definitely hold you off until November. Expand
  49. Oct 18, 2010
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I would like to start this review by pointing out to EVERYONE, this is not call of duty or battlefield. No comaprison should be drawn and any review which compares these games is not a review but a comparsion, journalistic suicide when writing a REVIEW. So lets begin. Graphically this game is superb, beautiful back drops, excellent water and night time effects, detail on weapons and explosions is exemplary. 9/10 Medal of Honor sounds amazing, each weapon has its own charcterisitic bang or click, the silencers are real life accurate, not a silent click speech is clear and explosions are good, however when alot of backround noise is present it seems to be very overpowering. 8/10 the campaign is a bit linear and a bit short but the gameplay is fantastic, realistic, characters move in a realistic fashion, weapons dont hold target for a full magazine a nice touch. each weapon has fire select modes a feature which is a must for any modern shooter. the enemy AI is a bit hit and miss in parts it seems that enemies simply want to lie down and be shot but in other parts they are tough and challenging 9/10 Online, the game is simply amazing, realsim, great cusomisation, you can see your bullets hitting a target, damage is realistic, its fast paced and accurate, sniper rifles will kill with one shot, pistols with two well aimed. the maps are big expansive and suit every type of player. the game modes available are fast paced and varied with a good hardcore mode. However there seems to be soem problems with the physics of the maps, enemies appearing through walls and other objects flung by explosion stuck in walls. 8/10 Final word is that medal of honor depicts a realife conflict, with real life weapon characteristics and real life attachements. Overall a very very enjoyable game and sits up there with the best shooters made. Expand
  50. Oct 22, 2010
    8
    Ive always seperated medal of honour games and call of duty before I start commenting on the game since most reviews seem to be about which is better than the other, I will have to touch on this since I do believe the single player game is heading towards the COD style which to be honest im none too keen on, there has never been anything wrong with the single player games in medal of honours past, the single player games have been utterly attrocious however, always suffering from lag problems in my experience anyway, this is where call of duty has always won me over. This time round I found the single player game to be a little dull to be honest, I just felt utterly meh about it all, im enjoying the multiplayer though and yes although the maps are small it doesnt feel like its trying to become call of duty which is great, it feels a bit like bad company but on a smaller scale which is fantastic, still some lag issues but for the most part the games have been pretty fair, if it wasnt for the multiplayer aspect of the game I think I would have to score the game a borderline 5/6 but with the multiplayer in it pushes up my score to an 8 :) Expand
  51. Aug 14, 2011
    9
    What I like best about this game is that the story is more focused and "close to home", which I felt a personal connection to the story. I dont touch multiplayer because i suck at it and dont care about it. The single player campaign took me around 6-7 hrs and I played through it three times to nab some extra achievements which are pretty fun to get. I hate to make comparisons, but I was growing tired of the CoD series and all the super epic moments at every corner. Now when it happens in those games i just sigh and say meh whatever. Oversaturated epic scenes made me bored pretty much. Medal of Honor is a great deal especially since its $19.99 new now, dont pass it up. Expand
  52. Jan 26, 2011
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I wasn't expecting big things from this game, since I have already read the reviews, and yet this game has succeed in letting me down with the levels lacking in variety. They used one level sequence, wash, rinse and repeat, and you have a bore-fest of around 7 hours. You attack some unsuspecting men, raid a disclosed area, and "strategically" find the correct spots to send the bombs falling and your targets. There was moments that really seemed cool, but knowing that I'll come upon a level the washed and repeated the later levels just discourages me. Multi-player is never my thing, and this made me hate it even more and chipped at the small liking that Transformer: WFC gave me. The one thing I have to give credit for is making a moment where YOU, the player, has to retreat escaping the overwhelming enemy, but then a unoriginal level came and it put me down again. Honestly, this game actually tired me because I wanted it to end so much, I was insane, never have I seen such unoriginal gameplay, and I'm picky with my games, what a let down. Expand
  53. Nov 8, 2010
    10
    One more note. I would go as far as to say the MOH 2010 is for adults or people that don't feel childishness. Which is were Black Ops is going. BO For instance is geared towards kids with it's radio controlled car i. e. d.s , etc. Note to shockware: The maps are this way because this is Dice's response to MW2. You would know this if you were a more experienced gamer or had done more research. Sincerely. Expand
  54. Nov 10, 2010
    9
    Medal of Honor is by no means perfect, but it did alot of things right. The sounds and music is the best I've heard on any game (and yes.. even the Linkin Park song). The graphics, while not perfect, are still better than anything I've been on Fallout or dare I say the "no-no word" Modern Warfare. The biggest problem I had with the game was the story. I think Danger Close missed a great opportunity to make a game based on an ongoing war , and give it some perspective. I have never been to war or joined the armed forces, but I am sure the sacrafices these men and women make for our freedoms is far more relative than just going from point A to point B for no apparent reason. On the multiplayer side, I have never been much of a fan of any multiplayer to begin with. But in all honesty, I found myself clocking in a few hours. I thought the progression system was relatively simple (perhaps thats the problem?), and I have yet to encounter any lag and/or campers (but again, I have not played multiplayer to great extents).

    Perhaps the coolest additions to the game was the "Tier 1 Mode." Very fun and addictive. Although not perfect, I honeslty hope EA continues to support this game (some story driven DLC instead of the dreaded map packs...?) and gets another crack at it in Medal of Honor 2. It was an honorable attempt.. one which I think deserves more credit than its been getting.
    Expand
  55. Dec 13, 2010
    0
    Okay, I don't like to give games a 0 because there is usually something about the game that has an upside but to be honest this game just doesn't. The single player is extremely short and is VERY EASY (even in Tier 1 mode in my opinion) and has no wow factor. If I may say so myself this game is doing what black ops is doing and thats riding the coattails of it's predecessor, which in this case is Dice's Battlefield. Now for the WORST MULTIPLAYER OF ALL TIME. The maps are way too small for 12v12 and involves nothing but camping. All the guns are overpowered and kill with maybe 3 bullets except for sniping which is just a joke. Everybody snipes because its extremely easy and effective (thats not a good thing). Did I mention there is NO KILLCAM. That makes this game a modders paradise because there is no way to know if there is a guy with an aimbot or some other mod (they are out there and will be in your game or so it seems). The spawn killing in this game is laughable because you will spawn and literally get sniped before you even realize what happened. The maps are extremely unbalanced as well with one side being full of cover and the other absolutly baron which tends to be where you spawn. The camping in this game is worse than all games combined where camping is a problem. The last thing I'll say is that there are what seems like unlimited killstreaks (AKA scorechains) that seem to find your teams spawn and kill all 12 of you multiple times over. Bottom line is Dice needs to really rethink this games multiplayer because nothing on Medal of Honor seems to work which is funny because it had a beta. Dont buy this game either get it for Christmas or don't get it at all. Expand
  56. Dec 29, 2010
    9
    Basically if you are tired of the "Sprint 10 feet, aim down sights, kill a guy, sprint 10 feet, aim down sights, kill a guy; repeat ad naseum" gameplay that the CoD series has been slowly degenerating into since MW1 then you'll enjoy this game.

    If you're 12 years old and think somethings crap because it doesn't have a helicopter crashing every 10 seconds then this game is best avoided.
    The multiplayer is excellent and feels like a more distilled version of Bad Company 2, it has no vehicles and yes the maps are smaller but many of them are similiar in size to Call of Duty and it's really not a problem.

    Personally I think the gameplay in multiplayer is much more enjoyable than in CoD (which I've put about 5 days gametime into over MW1 and 2, not loads but more than enough to know) as it encourages a slower more tactical approach to gameplay which CoD doesn't just severely lack but is not totally devoid of in random games. The fact there are no perks or any of that stuff actually balances the game better as well, and thank god there are no kill streaks.

    Basically if you want a game that has excellent MP, are sick of CoD but Battlefield doesn't suit you, you should pick this up.
    Expand
  57. SFN
    Jan 4, 2011
    9
    i must say, this an awesome game, the campaign is amazing and it feels like it was actually tooken from a soilder fighting in the war as you read this, the graphics are pretty decent for this day in age and the storyline of this game is really good but like everything game there must be the flaws and one of the biggest ones in the multiplayer, the multiplayer is awful, the maps are wayyy to small and people get **** kills by doing nothing, mostly what people do is camp and wait for some poor soul to run on by and its just really stupid but i dont get a game for the multiplayer i get the game for its actual true campaign and the campaign in this game is amazing, i must get to experience what our brave soilders are experiencing right now Expand
  58. Jan 7, 2011
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Evviva l'italiano!
    gioco superbo purtroppo bistrattato dai cod fan!
    multy aggiornato con la patch che rende l'esperienza online veramente unica in questo genere di giochi.
    un mix tra battlefield (per numero di player - modalità - sistema di mira e precisione di fuoco - sonoro) e cod (frenesia - mappe piccole - niubbaggine di alcuni).
    lo skill rating mette fine alla presenza dei camper, in quanto più si sta fermi e quindi lontani dalla zona hot, più il proprio punteggio peggiora. il tutto proporzionato con le K/D.
    gioco in cui bisogna essere stra precisi quando si spara e mirare sempre il busto o la testa.molto ben realizzata la differenza nella ferita riportata sulel gambe/torso/testa anche in modalità hardcore.
    dopo la patch, assenza di lag, respawn migliorato (ma mai peggiore di cod black ops).

    sicuramente non è un gioco alla COD, deve essere giocato con testa, avanzato con i compagni e poco alla volta.
    chi crede di poter sparare a caso e ovunque ha i secondi contati. gente che fa 3/10 ce ne molta!

    giocateci e giocateci!
    occhio alla testa!
    Expand
  59. Feb 25, 2011
    9
    Medal of Honour is a great game with a wide variety of gametypes and gameplay. Yes although it is a litlle like the all sucking Call of Duty franchise I do think that Dice did a good job in creating an original and emersing environment. With a mix of fast paced action, intense firefights, realistic warefare on a range of environments this game really is something totally different yet still keeping the same feel of all the other modern combat based games out today. The campaign altough it was quick was enthralling, exciting and every level was something new and unexpected. The simple feel of this game both multiplayer and campaign with the controls, environment, story and dialouge make this a splendid package that all realistic shooter fans defenitlely don't want to miss. Expand
  60. Jun 15, 2011
    7
    I see, so they made reborn to an a almost dead franchise, i had high hope to this one, thinking that maybe this could be a big rival to CoD,( I mean killing that repetitive franchise ) but everything results being more of the same, actually, this have a great positive characteristic, is the most realistic shooter out there, no fantasy or imaginative story is here .
  61. Apr 20, 2011
    7
    The problem with this game is that no-one would want to play it while Call of Duty and Battlefield exist. Which is a pity as it actually does some things better than those two (smaller levels and better unlock system). The single player campaign feels rushed though.
  62. Jul 7, 2011
    8
    Under rated to say the least. I participated in the beta, and despite me not getting a Singleplayer experience with that, after picking this up, I couldn't find what made this game anything worst than a 6. It's no masterpiece in the world of modern warfare gaming, but it's not Duke Nukem Forever (Note: I wrote this review nearly 9 months after the games release). In Singleplayer you complete operations which are actually really easy, on Hard I beat this game with ease and almost little to no difficulty at all. But when I jumped in multiplayer there's competition beyond repair. There are a lot of veteran players and decent ones at that. The biggest problem with the game are snipers and support actions. Camping, and moving slow is a big thing in the game, but there's something that ruins the game for most players, and that's the support actions. Their like kill streaks, but generally how you earn them is with points, and you accumulate more points by killing with headshots, or earning badges. The reason it's most broken, is because snipers camp a lot, but also do a lot of damage with virtually no recoil, and bolt action snipers are 1 hit 1 kills, so they camp, never die, get support actions and they spawn camp far to easily. That's the worst part about the multiplayer... that and it's next to impossible to seeing enemies from a distance compared to the beta. Other than that, not a bad game, not a buy for everybody, and not better than BC2/MW2, but still not a terrible game it's made out to be. Expand
  63. Jun 3, 2011
    10
    1: I haven't completed single player (really who cares).
    2: Multiplayer. a. Well the teamdeath match isn't that differentiated from COD. Infact COD edges it with more variety of weapons and perks.

    b. But where in my opinion this games is unqiue and magificent is the campaign section. Yes if you're out in the open you'll get sniped but thats part of its beauty. Throw down the smoke and
    find cover and flank flank flank.....this game is so much fun. I pray for the follow up I just hope MOH doesn't ry to compete with COD on teamdeath match and really develops campaign. c: I went back and revisited the campaign sections on BFBC2 and was underwhelmed.

    d. DICE if your reading this more of the campaign levels......oh and the guns feel and sound amazing. I do still after all this time still brick when a sniper bullet flies past my head......GREAT WORK and unprecendented 10 from me.
    Expand
  64. Jan 4, 2012
    9
    **SINGLE PLAYER ONLY REVIEW**

    I don't do multiplayer so I can't really comment on that but it terms of single player campaigns this game is scandalously underrated. It is far, far better than COD: Black Ops. The sniping levels are superb and there are several moments of genuine awe when you see the odds stacked against you but get to take your last stand against hordes of enemies rushing
    downhill towards you.

    It's one glaring flaw is the ill-advised helicopter sections. These were obviously added to compete with CODs top-down helicopter levels and fail miserably. Thankfully they're few and far between.

    Haters can keep COD: Black Ops. Me? I'm gonna go give MOH another whirl.
    Expand
  65. Apr 1, 2012
    6
    The campaign is OK. It tells a good soldier's story, but lacks any excitement in the story, maybe a little too realistic and lacking any cinematic feels. The campaign plays well though, but nothing special. The multiplayer is not good though. Dice clearly did not put forth their A game with MOH. This is not a BF multiplayer. It is not fun and quickly grows boring. The maps are bad and lack character. The game is average, but is not the revival of MOH as a tier 1 shooter. It cannot match up with others like Halo, cod, and bf Expand
  66. Sep 17, 2013
    10
    Just beat the game Medal of Honor. Another great game with an amazing story line. The way the campaign in built isn't just your basic shooter with 3 invincible special operations soldiers who take out an entire Russian military, which is very cliche. Instead this is about 8 brave soldiers trained for duty and fight not the Russians, but the Taliban. They fought and have gone through so many realistic firefights, situations, and things that actually DO happen in today's war. This is the most realistic war shooter I have ever played. Expand
  67. Oct 12, 2010
    5
    Firstly its no wonder Medal of Honor finally moved with the trend and built on their title with the modern day play, instead of WW II. yes it followed the coat tails of the Call of Duty franchise, but fans of one at least have the competition and ability to now play them off against each other or so you would think.

    It seems everything that makes Call of Duty the success it is is just
    simply missing from Medal of Honor. From the rag doll physics, or the weapons ability to feel contact and penetrate the enviroment and provide a lasting online expierence.

    Not to say Medal of Honor is completly lacking, the weapons have some worth and the sound and feel of them are nice. But once fired although it penetrates objects to hit its target nothing seems more than a mediocre attempt and doing what is expected.

    The single player game play, follows a very linear pattern and allows for very little deviation. You see paths you want to take, doors that are open and opportunity to flack and randomise your attack plan. However the game boxes you in by only providing the necessary path and pushing you were to go. Even the addttion of some great sniping action and use of airborne weaponary cant save the game from making you feel like you playing an arcade shooter than allows only one path.....theirs.

    On that note the single player is so short, you will wonder if this is just the demo levels. As it was over before it ever began. Leaving that sinking feeling that Medal of Honor will just dwindle away into nothing as now it has been dwarfed by the Call of Duty monster.
    Expand
  68. Nov 5, 2010
    1
    "This game is about realism, not arcade shooting" How can they say such things??! I just don't understand how could be a game realistic when you can complete it on the hardest difficultylevel with using only your pistol and even without any aiming you can kill your enemies mostly with head shots!! What?? I give "1" instead of "0" becouse of the work the developers invested into the game. I'm very disappointed about this game becouse it got 75 metascore.. i know they must have given out alot of games for free to the developers becouse of this "big name" can't get too bad reviews after all. But to say the thruth I'm happy I didn't buy it just saw it at a friend how terrible it is. I bought COD MW2 at the 1st day it came out.. the multiplayer is terrible at that game, but still I'm happy I bought that game since the single player is awsome and I re-play the game like a good movie.. but this game :( It's eventoo boring for the 1st play, the multiplayer is a cheap experience and it doesn't even look cool :( People out there!! If you don't want to waste your money, you just don't play with it! Expand
  69. Dec 25, 2010
    4
    This game really disappointed me. The single player is actually very decent, even though the story is a bit dull and cliched . It also has a lot of invisble walls and it gets frustrating because you're constantly standing behind your AI companions waiting for them to clear obstacles for you. Despite that its very solid in combat and in some parts I thought the graphics were really amazing.

    Mutliplayer was the big disappointment though, It felt like a mix of MW and Battlefield BC's, but not as good as either's. It feels so disjointed from the main game because they change the controls, no leaning or going prone any more, why not? Honestly though I know it was dice working on this ,but it feels so similar to a lesser BC 2 its not even funny.
    Expand
  70. Oct 15, 2010
    7
    If i could only rate the multiplayer this game would get a 9, the single player is horrible, not even worth reviewing. The online however is a lot of fun, upgrading is simple and everything is polished nicely. Awesome sound effects, health and weapon systems, its all there. Few things to nitpick though: The screen tends to be cluttered with meaningless objects all the time (like barrels, jars, crates that sort of thing) making it hard to spot enemies, and given that the game throws 24 players out at one time, it gets messy. You find yourself dying more than you should since you think you're covered, but you're wide open to enemies which never seem to come from the one direction (fortunately though in Objective style games though this isn't a problem). Sniping is way too easy, explosions do close to nothing, and kill-streaks are a too hard to get for things that are so useless. But if you are bored of MW2 or Bad Company 2, it definitely hits the spot. Its fast-paced, difficult online gaming. What more could you ask for? Black Ops that's what. Expand
  71. Nov 20, 2010
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. What good thong can I say about this game well maybe the hype that failed btw, but there is nothing but bad as soon as you start because first of all the people that you play are far from realistic it feels like a camera with a gun basically and that is not an enjoyable experience trust me. The story is as cheesy as it can get and the characters are lifeless with nothing but the death at the end to even make you feel a bit connected to the characters, there is a few gimmicks but overall 2/10

    Multiplayer? let me just start with saying that I was really looking forward to this seeing as i liked Dice's previous game BFBC2 but God was i wrong, the multiplayer is too frantic and unbalanced with everyone camping with snipers (which are basically a one hit kill most of the time with no skill required just aim shoot kill) your average life is ten secs but even if you do manage to get close you will be blasted away with the far range shotguns and overpowered SMG's. In certain maps as well the spawn director finds it amusing to spawn the two teams right in front of each other which isn't fun when one team has a tank.
    Overall 4/10

    Graphics are good very realistic but the guns look chubby and ugly looking, but the face cap and enemy AI is decent enough for playability but it is still mega easy the sound is nothing special just your basics.
    Expand
  72. Oct 24, 2010
    8
    This game is highly entertaing for the most part, its a refreshing, more realistic modern fps, but I do agree that it doesn't change or bring anything new to the table. Still a decent game for those who would like somewhat realistic take on multiplayer/campaign compared to the rediculous call of duty.
  73. Nov 17, 2010
    8
    On my initial play through I was really disappointed, the single player campaign was far too short. not too long after I played through a couple of the other recent games that this will undoubtedly be compared to and to my surprise it actually stood up well to them, so well in fact that I played Medal Of Honor again.
    Its nice to actually have to rethink your opinions on something once in a
    while, the campaign IS short but by todays standards anything over 4 hours seems to be acceptable, MoH is not helped by its frantic pace and setting being all in the one area, this does tend to blur together if played for prolonged periods.
    What really struck me on the second play was the quality of the audio, fantastic surrounding and very immersive. the gameplay while not breaking any records for innovation is extremely solid and rewarding, nothing gimmicky, just good FPS stuff.
    Expand
  74. Oct 21, 2010
    10
    This is the most realistic shooter i have ever played. You can really tell that the spec op consultants did their job. The campaign alone is well worth they buy, never once doubted that this was as real as it can get, all though it is a little short. Multiplayer is amazing and never lags! The only problem with it is the rank up system could have been made a little better. That aside, if you are looking for a change of pace, MOH is the most accurate modern shooter of all time, you owe it to yourself to ignore all these kids that didnt like it and at least rent it. Only reason it didnt get a 10 was the level up system. Expand
  75. Oct 22, 2010
    5
    I have three complaints with game. 1 Why is single player and multi-player like playing two separate games. You would've have thought that both developers would have had a chance to see how different each game was before they launched it. 2 Horrible spawn system in multi-player, there have been many occasions where either I was spawn camping or was being spawn camped. No reason that I should fear spawning and dying immediately upon doing so, sometimes several times in a row. 3 Explosives are weaker than pistol fire, so many times launching a rocket into a group of enemies only to have them turn around and kill me, no need to use c4 or noob tube because they don't actually kill anything anyway. Also I love you when you throw c4 i just drops ground, you can launch a grenade across the map but c4 is pulled down by earth amazing gravity. I will definitely be buying COD: black ops now. I was wanting a way out of the monster that activision has created, I guess I will have to wait for Brink for any hope of that. Expand
  76. Oct 29, 2010
    8
    The Old Medal of Honor franchise gets an up to date reboot.
    Essentially this is two different games. The single player by Danger Close uses a version of the Unreal Engine to good effect to create a good looking fast paced shooter, along the lines you'd expect these days from any of the major publishers.
    It's a good story with some of the best voice acting I've experienced in an fps.
    There are plenty of other things to do apart from shooting and walking about lets the game change pace from time to time. If you've loved Infinity Ward's single player experiences in COD you may be a little disappointed, but it's as good as anyone else's. Everything works as you'd expect if you're used to COD or Battlefield.

    Multiplayer is by DICE (the Battlefield studio) and you can tell instantly. It's pitched somewhere in-between the small maps of COD and the wide open spaces of Bad Company. If you imagine COD met Bad Company in a nightclub and they got it off and had a one night stand - MOH is the sort of child they would produce. It's slower than COD but faster than Bad Co. You can destroy more objects than COD but less than Bad Co. You unlock better weapons and ammo upgrades (perks) along the way and there is a form of kill streak, but it's not as overly dominant as in COD. Personally I like it at the moment but I don't know if it will have a lasting appeal (update - two weeks in and I'm still loving it). There are modes that COD and Bad Co. players will be familiar with and the promise of more maps and game modes free to VIP pack purchasers may extend the game, although I predict it will become quieter after the release of Black Ops in a few weeks time. All in all a good first attempt, I hope they continue with this franchise as they're plenty of potential for it and it's a good game, just with some serious competition in its genre
    Expand
  77. Oct 23, 2012
    8
    Magnificent and underrated, that is 2010's Medal of Honor. There was one portion in a dusty canyon with Taliban behind every rock and RPGs exploding in front of me when I could taste the dirt. Enemy troops retreat like real humans and are not cheap all-seeing hit scan robots. The player character is not knocked unconscious by an explosion every five minutes. Then there is the chatter of the troops about how the generals are trying to run the war from 9000 miles away. The politics are not subtle, but at least they are there.

    What goodwill the game earns from its realistic portrayal of everything is often sullied by amateurish 1990s era glitches. Events do not always activate properly. Unable to open doors on your own, you will find yourself stuck until the game registers some event that lets you pass. Invisible walls are also too prevalent. Have you ever played "Halo: Reach"? Tactical shooters can have huge environments! Then there is the lengthy, about 5 short and stingy hours.

    In many ways, "Medal of Honor" is better than the "Call of Duty" series. There is no convoluted plot involving traitors, secret technologies, and explosions that knock you out every five minutes. Instead, "Medal of Honor" gives you a real look at modern war. Lots of little gun fights, setting up air strikes, and no one battle that turns the tide of war. "Medal of Honor" does avoid the issue of Taliban blending in with civilians (and they have some Chechens fighting in Afghanistan. I looked it up, it's true!). Yet, I felt like I learned more about real warfare while playing "Medal of Honor" than I ever did playing "Call of Duty". That last time I had that feeling was during the arguments against objectivism in "Bioshock". Games are aspiring to higher things and "Medal of Honor" continues this great trend.
    Expand
  78. Oct 20, 2010
    7
    I think medal of honor is intitle to a fairly good score. The multiplayer is like any other fps out at the moment and reminds me of dice's other title: battefield bad company 2. in the multiplayer instead of getting a kill streak you get awards depending on what point streak you are on which i think a is a nice fresh way to play an online shooter. Alot of call of duty fans will hate me, but i think it has to be said, the medal of honor campayne is short but has managed to do everything call of duty failed to do which was to actually emmerse you within the game and actually intrest you long enough to finish it without having to result to going online. In the short space of time that you have within the story you really get to know the characters and enjoy the whole experiance. However, eventhough i belive that dices shooters beat call of duty obviously hardly anybody else will agree as most never seem to ever take modern warefare 2 out of thier disk drive. It may sound like a dig at the mw2 fans but let me tell you, THERE ARE OTHER GAMES OUT TRYING PLAYING A FEW! Expand
  79. Oct 13, 2010
    6
    This game doesn't bring anything new to the table. Everything in this game I have seen before in other shooters. It is yet another war shooter style game to compete with the very popular COD, MW and BF games. If you love those shooters then you will most likely enjoy MOH. MOH isn't as good as BF BC2 or COD MW2, infact it's slightly worse than those games. Single player teammate AI is horrible. It's a problem when your teammate is standing there doing nothing while you venture ahead and he yells at you to hurry up. This happened to me throughout the game, and I had to restart missions because the bad teammate AI. Multiplayer brings nothing new to the table. Small maps, lots of players, tons of campers. The game is mediocre at best. Pick up MW2 or BFBC2 if you haven't played those. If you're a fan of the genre and want another game to play, rent it, you might like it. Expand
  80. Oct 19, 2010
    6
    Single Player Only Review. I will start this review by saying I'm not a massive fan of fps, however if there done well I will play them to death. Unfortunately this overall is not done very well. I agree that the graphics, sounds and atmosphere are very well done and extremely emersive adding to a real involvement in the game . . .to those watching. The game play is where it all falls apart.

    Playing through the game its difficult to know what is expected of you in some missions due to vocal instructions (only) either not being clear or spoken in military jargen, there is a mission point indicator, however that does not help in the 'how too'. At some points I have overtaken the npc players and ended up at continual spawning enemy points. I have then had to return to find the small patch of land i need to stand on to continue the mission.

    Overall an excellent game that is spoilt by the game play aspect, which is irritating enough to distract from the overall experience. I shall continue to play MW2 and Red Dead for my fps fix
    Expand
  81. Oct 13, 2010
    7
    I went into this game with very low expectations. EA's Medal of Honor series has been on the down low for a few years now and it's last iteration, Medal of Honor: Airborne, was not very impressive so needless to say I was not expecting much from this game at all. It's a good thing I did.

    First of all, the marketing campaign for this game was very pathetic, at least from the XBox 360
    end. one day before launch, 5 promotional videos were still grayed out, there was hardly any hype for this game and all the hype it was getting was about multiplayer. So I thought multiplayer was going to be better than single player. It was actually reverse.

    The single player campaign is very entertaining. It's realistic, intense and well worth at least two play throughs. My only gripe is minor, and it's the stiffness in the reload/ aiming animations. When you try to perform either of the two aforementioned actions it feels as if there is no weight to the weapons and it looks very stiff and outdated. this normally wouldnt be a gripe but when ive been playing call of duty for a while now i expect there to be a standard in the level of polish in a modern combat type shooter, especially first person. other than that the single player campaign was great! characters and scenarios are well thought out and very intense and educational to a degree. guns feel realistic and it was a relief to play a game where money was put into sound effects. the guns sound very real and the kick is very life like, unlike call of duty where shooting a sidearm sounds like shooting an airsoft gun and there is no kick/penalty for firing in full auto. Medal of Honor nails realism to the T!

    now multiplayer. as i mentioned before, i thought multiplayer was going to be better than single player from the amount of videos i had seen of the multiplayer and because the tried and true battlefield formula was being used but i was wrong. multiplayer was intolerable. first off, like i said, there is a standard to the level of polish in first person shooters these days and not to be nitpicky but the polish just wasnt there. when your gun runs out of ammo instead of the bolt locking back your character just slaps in a new mag very stiff, no weight to the guns at all. plus the m16a4 is fully automatic, in real life, the m16a4 is NOT fully automatic. call me nitpicky but i pay attention to detail (it's the little things you know?) and these erroneous depictions of modern weapons is almost inexcusable, it's like DICE just didnt care. as far as gameplay, the multiplayer is a joke. its a giant mess of uncoordinated "warzone" where snipers rule and it just feels to arcady. it takes too many shots to kill someone and it just feels like an uncoordinated mess. i may be coming off as whiny but keep in mind i've been playing call of duty for a long time and it has just set the bar so high if EA wants to make a name for itself in the modern warfare realm, they just need to step it up. EA didnt even need to contract out to DICE for multiplayer, if they just kept their campaign engine then multiplayer would probably be better than it is now.

    in conclusion, medal of honor single player is a great game 8.75/10. . . but multiplayer is a 6.25/10 and that's is the staying power in games these days, especially first person shooters. is this game worth 60 bucks? hell no. but if you can get you a copy for 30 bucks or less, its definitely worth a play through.
    Expand
  82. Oct 15, 2010
    6
    When I bought Medal of Honor I was thinking it would have an awesome multiplayer and a mediocre campaign. I was wrong. The Campaign is very fun, full of action, great sound and except for the occasional textures taking awhile to load a very nice looking game. I bought it the day it came out. Campaign is somewhat short, but not any shorter then most FPS these days. I beat it the day I got it, then again on hard the next day. Campaign is a little on the easy side. Tier 1 on the other hand is a what I would consider hard.

    One big complaint I have seen about Medal of Honor is that its a clone of Modern Warfare. Yes, some parts of it are too similar to even think about arguing that. Even with that being the case it is still a fun game. The truth is "original" games get closer and closer to being impossible with each new release and almost every game out you could say "hey they copied this game!!" (Halo Reach sniper mission anyone?) So lets just put that its not original complaint to the side.

    Now to the reason its getting a 6. The multiplayer is terrible. I have been playing multiplayer first person shooters since Unreal Tournament and playing in a CAL clan for Counter-Strike. I have never been spawn killed so many times in my entire life. The maps are very small the majority of everyone is sniping and you might as well just play team death match because only a few people pay attention to the objectives. I am a huge fan of Dice but I have no idea what they were thinking when making this. Did they get **** I really don't know BUT I still have high hopes for Battlefield 3.

    Should you buy Medal of Honor? If you want it for the campaign then definitely I think you should. If your wanting it for the multiplayer I would give it a pass or at least wait for it lower in price.
    Expand
  83. Oct 16, 2010
    10
    I like it. It's exactly between BFBC2 and MW2 arcade s**t. I was bored after playing MW2 MP arcade style but BFBC2 MP is more about running than killing. MOH is exactly what I was looking for.
    Minus pts: very short and easy SP (5hrs max)
    Plus pts: audio(DICE rocks), graphic, MP
  84. Oct 16, 2010
    7
    Pretty excited to get this...So far, CAMPAIGN and TIER 1 have been cool...What is up with the MULTIPLAYER? Why does your character move so slow... I like a challenge but this is getting &%!! ridiculous!!! I will have to get my MULTIPLAYER kick with HALO REACH of CODMW2...sigh...
  85. Oct 18, 2010
    3
    Would have been a great game....if it were only 30$...Campaign was ok, nothing new or exciting(and 4 hrs?...seriously?)...multiplayer is just like Bad Company 2...only not as much fun.
  86. Oct 19, 2010
    0
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It is a perfect game for 2002 year. Maps very littles for multiplayer, no interactive ambientation, EXAMPLE: the cases break off and the lamps not! I know why EA GAMES have sold the game before call of duty black ops........ BECOUSE AFTER, THEY wouldn't have sold A LOT OF COPY OF THIS GAME!!!! IRRESPONSABLE SOLD OF A GAME!!!!!! THEY PLAY WITH OUR MONEY!!!! 0.0 Expand
  87. Oct 22, 2010
    5
    Had this game come out three years ago (before Modern Warfare), the game would have been pretty damn good, but as it is, been there, done that. The campaign is boring with the big moments in the story being rehashed a few times in the same campaign. The multiplayer is also disappointing, with the maps all looking very similar (since they are all set in the desert). I'm very disappointed in DICE's effort, considering Bad Company 2 is amazing. Overall, rental at best. Expand
  88. Oct 25, 2010
    8
    Modern shooters are now flooding the market the way WWII shooters did for so long. Medal of Honor had a big share of the market when it came to fighting back Nazis but is now only playing catch up in the modern warfare market. And caught up they have. Danger Close delivers a very solid shooter with this reinvention of the series.
    Players step into the boots of three different soldiers
    throughout the course of the game which takes you through mountains, caves, helicopter flights, and midnight ATV rides. The action is very intense and the campaign feels more real than some of the games competitors. Its not a simulation like Operation Flashpoint but the game does a fantastic job of making you feel like you are right there in the middle of some crazy firefights. One shootout in particular is probably one of my favorite video game moments ever. Your team has to hide in a hut while the enemy comes at you from 3 sides of the mountain. Itâ Expand
  89. Oct 26, 2010
    3
    Im sorry, but this game is a Major Letdown. I liked this game until chapter 3. Then I ran into about 4 glitches making me reload checkpoint again and again. Single player is okay, but wow is it ever short! I think I got through it in about 3 hours!
    Multi Player is okay, but its no MW2 or BC2. They went for best of both worlds, and ended up Worse of both worlds.
    Sorry but this game
    fall short on many levels. Expand
  90. Oct 29, 2010
    7
    A game definitely designed to take on the largest name in the genre: Call of Duty. Promising a strong campaign and a more Call of Duty oriented Multiplayer we were interested how this game would pan out! We were especially interested to see how using 2 different game engines would finalise! We were glad to see that the campaign was fun (better than Bad Company 2 although not a MW2 or WaW beater) although too short for us to say "we got our money's worth from this investment" and we know many of you will feel the same. As for graphics, it does nothing new to the genre (plus we know how much benchmarks are getting raised with every entry into the FPS genre) and the Unreal Engine is better suited to the mountains of Helmand Valley to the small town in the first level of the game. As for the online, we felt frostbite from Bad Company 2 had improved in terms of graphics, however it was just a sniper heavy imbalanced experience where it was missing team work and vehicles of Bad Company 2 and replaced it with the 1 man band lonewolves of Modern Warfare 2 who all love running off to satisfy their own needs! In conclusion, a good reboot to the Medal of honor series and we could tell by the ending we can expect another installment in the future, however with some largely popular rivals in the form of Bad Company 2 and Call of Duty Modern warfare 2 and Black Ops we feel it has its work majorly cut out! Expand
  91. Nov 2, 2010
    3
    This is one lousy game. Shocking enemy AI (they basically stare at you while you run up and knife them) Mediocre weapons (only one I quite like) and weak plot (at least I think there is a plot) If you like this genre, rather wait for COD: Black Ops. I'm pretty sure it'll blow this nonsense away! Back to the drawing board EA.
  92. Nov 15, 2010
    8
    this game is aimed at being a realistic war game plain and simple. This is not call of duty and you will die a lot if you try to play it as such. You cannot stand out in the open and expect to live very long and guess what... thats how war works. It is not COD where you can pull that kind of stuff off and if you are dumb enough to think that it is or that is similar you're going to be extremely frustrated. If you stand out in the middle of a street you will get shot in the head. A sniper rifle will kill you if it hits you in the torso and head area! Finally!! I've been so sick of games like call of duty that have 50 cal weapons that don't kill in one shot in vital areas. I don't care if you feel it's unfair bc it's not. It's realistic. I was disappointed that they took bullet drop and leading your targets out of the engine from the battlefield 2 model but i guess you can't have everything. I've also seen a lot of complaining about the size of the maps. In response I return to the realism argument. Firefights take place in a relatively small areas that cause mass chaos. I thought the maps did a good job of creating these types of scenarios. After reading some of the "professional" reviews I think many of the the reviewers have missed the point of the game entirely. Just because it's a FPS doesn't mean that it has to be halo or COD as many people have assumed. Just because you can't pick the game up and instantly be good at it doesn't make it bad (It took me an hour or two of multiplayer before I started posting decent scores). It is simply a different game. Expand
  93. Nov 16, 2010
    10
    This is *my* review. I'll review only MP, played on Xbox 360 (also in relation to BC2 and CoD:BO/MW2)

    MoH MP sits between BC2 and MW2/BO. It is all infantry but in a Frostbite/Dice environment. Result of this is that the gameworld feels BC2, but it is far more action oriented. So you'd expect it to feel like MW2/BO? No sir, MoH MP feels much more adult. Sure there are killstreaks to be
    earned (kind of) and dying and respawning is quick. But this is definitly not MW2/BO.

    While there is the basic TDM gamemode you have also a Dice/BC special which is 'Combat Mission', a sequence of single objectives to meet (attack or defend). A good Combat Mission can take 15-20 minutes and it is all action. The good thing about Combat Mission is that it streamlines and orgnanises the battle. So although it is hectic, there is still the feeling of sense. 12 guys attacking 1 point, and 12 other guys defending that point. It makes for extremely frantic gunfight and a good Combat Mission where both teams do their job and are matched is one of the best gaming experiences i've ever had (counting from 1985 up that is:). A good Combat Mission is easily as good as a good Rush in BC2, but this time with 12 footsoldiers versus 12 footsoldier which is imho just more fun (i like infantry, i never am good in Heli flying:)

    So where does that leave MW2/BO? Well frankly, those games are much more directed to the mass, even kids (although it is an 18+ game!?). I mean, just think about the BO RC carbomb. Fun, if you like that sort of things, but for me? No, i don't want it. But even the BO hardcore/barebones are much too run&gun for me. For me it is hectic but without the fun. I simply don't find BO enjoyable

    To put it better, i don't find BO enjoyable next to MoH. Moh is much more fun to me. (in the MW2 days, i played that game, until BC2 arrived, then i started with BC2 and never gave MW2 a second look)

    Conclusion/advice: If you like 12vs12 infantry-only battles in a Frostbite/Dice environment, then MoH is definitely for you! So my marks MP:

    MoH = 9/10 (more maps needed!)

    (in respect to BC2 = 9/10 and CoDBO = 6,5/10)


    Cheers,
    Max
    Expand
  94. cee
    Nov 24, 2010
    7
    Some may call us the Call of Duty Generation, but there's good reason to. This is a very good try but please try again EA. A large company such as that should be able to give gamers the same amount of content from other shooters.
  95. Nov 30, 2010
    2
    This is unbelievably poo. How can DICE release this game after the gold that was BFBC2? Single player was boring and I turned it off after 2 levels. Then I went and played some multiplayer. All it was was spawn camping. I was spawn camping people were spawn camping me. Absolutely atrocious. I went back to single player got bored...

    ...Again tried multiplayer and couldn't even get put in
    a game. I just went into some stupid pre-game level with noone else. 10 times. This game blows.

    I think 2 is probably overly generous.

    DICE what were you thinking?

    Halo Reach and Black Ops will both destroy this bucket. I hate MW2 but Black Ops is looking pretty good right about now. Battlefield 2 better not blow like this set of sheep testes!
    Expand
  96. Dec 2, 2010
    0
    The first thing I want to say, the game is great! Certainly summed up the single player campaign, but I liked the multiplayer. The next thing I want to say is that the multiplayer has tightened a long time. DICE have shown that they are able to create some really good projects. Of course to the best shooters there is far, but I'd like to add that all this is not the worst game this year.
  97. Dec 3, 2010
    8
    Beautiful graphics, realistic physics. I like the large teams in Multiplayer mode. Not enough people playing the game though. I agree with a previous review regarding the maps. Bigger is better and that has been a strength with the DICE games.
  98. Jan 25, 2011
    7
    This game isn't really bad, but it isn't really good. The campaign is pretty decent, with some pretty good action, it didn't really disappoint me. The multi-player was pretty good too, but still, its pretty bad. OK, the problem about all the games that DICE makes, is that they are so DULL. Really dull. They can't catch the action that CoD, or Halo can.
  99. Jan 2, 2011
    7
    Singleplayer : 6/10
    +'s
    Pretty and it works
    -'s
    Short and shallow storyline

    Multiplayer : 8/10
    +'s
    Nice hybrid of BBC & COD
    Realistic and Gritty gameplay
    -'s
    Lots of spawnkilling
    Needs more maps
  100. May 10, 2011
    6
    With so many FPS's out there a game in this genre has to do a lot to stand out, and while Medal of Honor does do something pretty new, it just doesn't have what it takes to be the next big military shooter, the graphics are dated and bland, but the sound is fantastic, and the controls are tight, the campaign has a good story and the ending is fantastic, it's nothing we haven't seen before, and the multiplayer just feels like a Battlefield knock off without all of the polish, so it's fun but not as good as all of the others out there, while I'm happy to see the Medal of Honor series back, and glad to see it's trying something new, it's just nothing all that great, don't get me wrong it's not a bad game, it's just not all that great, it's just ok, and I can see this having a lot of strong supporters, which is good because this game deserves it, and I hope there will be a sequel that's better, I would recommend a rental before you buy this. Expand
  101. Oct 12, 2010
    0
    Too disappointed for much regurgitated diatribe here, folks...this game had all the marketing of a COD rival, yet all the substance of an old system's castoff. The multiplayer is abysmal; as if all the fun was ripped from its soul by attempting to merge two successful formulas from other multiplayers previous to MOH. Like a bad collegiate term paper, though the plagiarism seemed easy to hide in the concept, the execution and read exposed the fraud, and it is in the gameplay and true lack of character, much like a true cheat. DICE should be ashamed to put their stamp on their side of the game (multi), but the campaign is decent if you are a true Department Of Defense or PMC junkie. This title is not worth the money as a campaign stand alone, nor any time wasted in the multiplayer that lacks any real excitement or sense of accomplishment and camaraderie. Collapse
Metascore
74

Mixed or average reviews - based on 71 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 40 out of 71
  2. Negative: 0 out of 71
  1. Jan 20, 2011
    60
    Unfinished, or at the very least, unpolished. [Issue#102, p.112]
  2. 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.
  3. 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.