User Score
6.7 out of 10

Mixed or average reviews- based on 255 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 52 out of 255

Review this game

  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
    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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  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 tha
    t 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 poi
    nts 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. Expand
  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
Metascore

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.