User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 270 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 54 out of 270

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. Dec 12, 2013
    I think this is a decent game, I thought the gameplay was great but they lack graphics. The game is kind of short and easy causing you to get bored of it but for the time being its a fun game
  2. Sep 17, 2013
    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
  3. Aug 23, 2013
    1) graphics- not bad but not good either. rank 5
    2)engine- the game works good not crushing but may lag for average pcs. rank 7
    3)story- its try to show there some story but there just nothing there except some voice actors spitting words. rank 1
    4)gameplay- short 2-4 hours ,same gameplay as cod this game try to copy every thing from cod except the fun factor small maps scripted to
    much,you gun and run rooms of 2-4 enemies 90% of the time its doesn't boring but its ain't fun either. rank 5
    5)online- average, same us battlefield just without vehicles on small boring maps rank 5

    conclusion- average short boring sp with average online play should you buy it? no. should you rent? well yes prob only for the 2 hour sp.if u want multiplayer just go for bf 2/3 or cod mw3
    final rank 5
    (cause of all the teens who give this game 10 without any good reason i trolled it to 0)
  4. Aug 10, 2013
    I liked this game because it was a little different. It tried to mimic real life Afghanistan where enemies are far away in the distance and creep up out of nowhere, it had a whole different feel to it compared to other first person shooters. The graphics were nice too. The only thing i didn't like was how EA games said this wasn't another "GO TEAM USA" propaganda piece, then that's exactly what it turned out to be. It's based on real life missions in real life settings, yet they removed all other nations troops and replaced them with America troops only to try make America look cool and badass in that typical American fashion. It would of been nice to play as other nations soldiers within the campaign. We had 25yrs of games being either a lone steroid fuelled American or American troops only, Call of Duty Modern Warfare 4 turned the tide and changed all that in 2007 and it was very refreshing. But it would seem EA are a very patriotic bunch who want to nip this in the butt and get back to American only troops in games. It was boring 25yrs ago EA! Expand
  5. May 26, 2013
    If there's one FPS series I love, it's Medal of Honor. so when I found out about the reboot, I didn't know what to think. little did I know this reboot would actually be pretty good. the story for the game is nice. this game manages to modernize Medal of Honor while also keeping it in the past, and the writing is pretty decent. the gameplay is standard FPS gameplay. with gameplay like this, there isn't much to talk about, except the graphics make it look nice. even though single player doesn't use frostbite, the graphics look pretty good. why EA chose to use frostbite for the multiplayer only, I guess we'll never know. the music is ok at best. most tunes are forgettable, and aren't that catchy. However, the theme song, The Catalyst, sung by Linkin Park, is one of my favorite songs by the band. Something I didn't like about this game was the lighting. I usually don't complain about lighting in anything unless it's distracting or glaring. in this game, it's both. The lighting can either make things too dark or too bright in the environment, which is really bad during firefights. it may be because I haven't really figured out what brightness setting is best for the game, but I find myself going back to adjust it many times. another bland thing about the game is the multiplayer. the multiplayer has little customization for classes, and not many game modes. to charge an online pass for this is not worth it at all. Overall, Medal of Honor is an ok reboot to a great series. the single player is fun, but the multiplayer is not. the graphics are great, but the lighting is not. if you're a fan of FPS games and looking for spare time to kill, give this game a try. Expand
  6. May 10, 2013
    The SP campaign is not bad, maybe too easy even on Tire mode. The MP, G-d, feels so foolishly, I played it only 20 hours or so, but everyone played as recon and sat behind cove sniperring people. It is not like random MP games like call of duty in which you can forget about tactic but focus on fast response and better aiming, and it is also not like BF in which in can have vehicles and play like part of team. This is just a mess. Expand
  7. Dec 9, 2012
    Far better than CoD. The story is insanely better, and the multiplayer works better, with no cheap kills or killstreaks. This is coming from a guy who loved CoD up until MW3. I love the dedicated servers. Such an improvement over peer hosts.
  8. Nov 9, 2012
    I cannot recall a more bland, tasteless experience in all my years of gaming. I'm one of those guys who liked both Halo and CoD despite their flaws, but holy @#$% this was boring. Medal of honor warfighter is the gaming equivalent to eating cardboard. With so many great games coming out this month, you'd have to be insane or an accountant to even give this nonsense a second glance.
  9. Oct 23, 2012
    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.
  10. Jul 26, 2012
    A mediocre game... thats it. A single player campaign that offer nothing new. A clone of call of duty (regenerating health, extreme linear, 5 hours campaign, checkpoints everywhere). Buy this game if you like the same thing over and over again.
  11. Jun 4, 2012
    This game was very bad. Campaign was gay, and the multiplayer had a small community of only 2000 players or so. I'm not getting the new Medal of Honor which is coming out sometime this year. Campaign 5/10 Multiplayer 5/10 Medal of Honor 5.2/10
  12. Apr 1, 2012
    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
  13. Mar 4, 2012
    This game is alright. Singleplayer campaign was okay, but nevertheless fun. However the multiplayer was not okay. The lack of recoil on guns and the one shot kill with a sniper was very frustrating. But it eventually comes down to being an average game altogether.
  14. Jan 19, 2012
    Medal of honor is a okay game it's not really a must have for the multiplayer because about 100-1000 people play everyday which is not much. The story is great but it is too short it can be completed in less than one day even on hard difficulty. tier one mode can be easy too.
  15. Jan 6, 2012
    i dont care what anyone says about this game it is a lot of fun. The aspect of multiplayer i dont like is you could be the taliban which is a little offensive being our situation in afghanistan
  16. Jan 4, 2012

    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.
  17. Dec 29, 2011
    Ignore the mediocre reviews. This game is HIGHLY underrated. The campaign is terrible, sure, but if you area after a game that combines the best of Battlefield with CoD, this is a brilliant game for you. And, it has a VERY small price tag, so it's a bargain worth picking up!
  18. Dec 12, 2011
    Everyone seems to compare this to much to Modern Warfare 2 so i'm going to explain why i like this game and why it's my most hyped game of the year. First of it all. The single player compared to the competition is well classic Medal Of Honor like we are used to it and we don't get thrown into different battles on different places in the world all the time. It's made in the way a singleplayer campaign in a First Person Shooter should be. I feel that the singleplayer in Medal Of Honor has something that Modern Warfare or any other game has had since 2003. Soul. Even though it tries to be another modern combat hit game it still has the same soul and feeling like the old Allied Assault game. Graphics then? Well Modern Warfare2 is soon 1 year old but when i play both games on my SD tv i see a clear difference. Modern Warfare has this greyish tone on a lot of things. Medal Of Honor has a perfect color saturation and the environment looks more alive(Plants,trees and grass) Audio then? well.. in this department MW2 is really not worth comparing to Medal Of Honor.. Huge difference.. Medal Of Honor sounds amazing and it is more comparable to Bad Company 2. It sounds real as hell sometimes and that is a huge step forward. Drumroll?.... MULTIPLAYER? This is the category were MW2 should shine but no. Medal Of Honor is simpler, has a few less maps and game modes but for me that doesn't matter since when i play MW2 i only play TDM,DM or Search and Destroy. Maps then? I'll bet that there will be more maps both in free downloads and in DLC. Issues with Medal Of Honor? Yes as i said earlier the game has a few issues. Framerate for one example. That are just small issues that for me is a little bit irritating but that will be fixed in a while. So i'm not in a hurry and i have the time to wait. Expand
  19. Dec 12, 2011
    I enjoyed MOH's campaign as it is one of the first military shooters I have played in a long time that has a REAL story based off of REAL people. It was told well and had some fun variations, to any of you who say otherwise oh my bad let me recommend CoD for its fantastic "go here, go there, follow this guy, shoot him, shoot him but oh NO don't kill him, crawl through this here bush, random dramtic part, end....." That is rpetitive especially since it's repeated for EVERY GAME IN THAT FRANCHISE, but I digress. Onto the multiplayer. Many people complain about it and I will admit as well it was not the best, but it was not dreadful. As with DICE titles the servers took a while to function but once they did, they did so without a hitch. What's that you got killed by a sniper in one bullet? Well of course you do because that's what snipers do in real life! Also the reason why there is so much camping is because there is such scarce cover, you can be behind a full wall and then next thing you know you have to run through a massive plain of oben ground. That doesn't mix well with snipers moving with a bolt action rifle and a pistol to defend themselves so yea I don't like the camping either, but put yourself in there shoes first before you criticize. Expand
  20. Nov 15, 2011
    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.
  21. Nov 9, 2011
    I love this game. Wery good single compaign and great multiplayer - even better than CoD4:MW. Super graphics and sound and pace of the game. I'm waiting for MOH2.
  22. Oct 19, 2011
    At $19.99 I decided to give MOH a try. WOW... amazing, amazing game. Some quirks here and there, but the story line is deep and easy to relate to. For those who finished the campaign (shorty), the game is clearly a homage to service men, and must be played in that context. If you want a fast point shoot and bomb game, this is not for you as the experience is closer to cinematography.

    Online is below average, if not poor. Giving a 9 (maybe should be 7) crediting the story.
  23. Aug 23, 2011
    Medal Of Honor sports great visuals, slick presentation and deep realism. But being based on a conflict that is still fresh in our minds means never having the balls to go places that Call Of Duty and similar titles can. Gritty but very routine.
  24. Aug 14, 2011
    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
  25. Jul 7, 2011
    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
  26. Jun 20, 2011
    Medal of Honor tries to do a lot of things, and in some cases succeeds, but that isn't always the case sadly. It is split in to two separate games basically, the single player made by Danger Close and the Multiplayer made by DICE. The single players has a story that is more emotional than other war games and some parts that really made me feel like I was one of the Tier 1 soldiers. The game is very realistic and has quite a few fun moments. Unfortunately, most of the parts in the single player are look and shoot at still enemies. Yes, there are other parts such as an ATV level and a level where you pilot a helicopter, but even then you can't shoot while on the ATV or even steer the chopper. The graphics are very good, for the most part. There were some moments where the frame rate dropped significantly and there were other times texture pop ins were a major issue. But overall, the graphics were great and some textures really shined. The voice acting and sound are fantastic, and the explosion sounds were some of the best parts of the game. If I purely graded the game based on the single player, the game would receive an 8, but due to the multiplayer this isn't so. The graphics are the same from the single player, but it isn't the same game by any means. The multiplayer is class based, which I found ironic because I felt that most everyone sniped or ran out in the open like an idiot. The maps felt very, very small, especially after Bad Company 2. I felt limited to where I could go, mainly because I was. There were countless moments I was told "RETURN TO BATTLE" because I was pushing too much. In my opinion, that shouldn't happen. The main thing that brought this game lower was its length which was way too short. I recommend this game as rent, just to play it, but definitely not a purchase. Expand
  27. Jun 15, 2011
    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 .
  28. Jun 3, 2011
    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.
  29. May 10, 2011
    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
  30. Apr 20, 2011
    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.
  31. Apr 17, 2011
    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
  32. Feb 28, 2011
    In my opinion, Medal Of Honor is not majorly flawed as some say, sure it has minor issues with regards to lacklustre AI and the never-ending spawning of enemies. Nonetheless, an emotionally charged story along with satisfying gun play will provide you a good nights worth of entertainment. Too bad the campaign didn't last longer.
  33. Feb 25, 2011
    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
  34. Feb 16, 2011
    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. Jan 26, 2011
    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
  36. Jan 25, 2011
    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.
  37. Jan 7, 2011
    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!
  38. SFN
    Jan 4, 2011
    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
  39. Jan 2, 2011
    Singleplayer : 6/10
    Pretty and it works
    Short and shallow storyline

    Multiplayer : 8/10
    Nice hybrid of BBC & COD
    Realistic and Gritty gameplay
    Lots of spawnkilling
    Needs more maps
  40. Dec 29, 2010
    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.
  41. Dec 25, 2010
    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.
  42. Dec 13, 2010
    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
  43. Dec 10, 2010
    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
  44. Dec 3, 2010
    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.
  45. Dec 2, 2010
    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.
  46. Nov 30, 2010
    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!
  47. cee
    Nov 24, 2010
    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.
  48. Nov 20, 2010
    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.
  49. Nov 17, 2010
    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.
  50. Nov 16, 2010
    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)

  51. Nov 15, 2010
    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
  52. Nov 12, 2010
    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!
  53. Nov 11, 2010
    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.
  54. Nov 10, 2010
    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.
  55. Nov 8, 2010
    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
  56. Nov 5, 2010
    "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
  57. Nov 2, 2010
    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.
  58. Oct 29, 2010
    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
  59. Oct 29, 2010
    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
  60. Oct 26, 2010
    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
  61. Oct 25, 2010
    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
  62. Oct 24, 2010
    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.
  63. Oct 23, 2010
    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
  64. Oct 22, 2010
    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
  65. Oct 22, 2010
    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
  66. Oct 22, 2010
    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
  67. Oct 21, 2010
    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
  68. Oct 20, 2010
    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.
  69. Oct 20, 2010
    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.
  70. Oct 20, 2010
    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
  71. Oct 19, 2010
    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.
  72. Oct 19, 2010
    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
  73. Oct 19, 2010
    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
  74. Oct 18, 2010
    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.
  75. Oct 18, 2010
    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
  76. Oct 18, 2010
    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
  77. Oct 17, 2010
    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
  78. Oct 17, 2010
    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.
  79. Oct 17, 2010
    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.
  80. Oct 16, 2010
    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
  81. Oct 16, 2010
    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...
  82. Oct 16, 2010
    Medal of Honor is probably the worst first person shooter that I've touched since the first Killzone. The best words to describe are it being utterly awful. Aside from being full of frame rate drops. The campaign is still playable. Question is do you really want to play it? It takes about 4 hours to complete on the hardest difficulty and provides absolutely no challenge at all and feels an exact replica of Modern Warfare.. Nothing new or innovative except the feature being able to peak around with a cover button. Which is the only good feature in this game so I gave it a 1 instead of a 0.
    If Medal of Honor Frontline did not come with the game I would have returned this blasphemy in a second.
    If you are looking for a game to hold you over. This is not the game for you.
  83. Oct 16, 2010
    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
  84. Oct 16, 2010
    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
  85. Oct 16, 2010
    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
  86. Oct 15, 2010
    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. :)
  87. Oct 15, 2010
    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.
  88. Oct 15, 2010
    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.
  89. Oct 15, 2010
    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
  90. Oct 14, 2010
    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
  91. Oct 13, 2010
    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
  92. Oct 13, 2010
    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.
  93. Oct 13, 2010
    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
  94. Oct 13, 2010
    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
  95. Oct 13, 2010
    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.
  96. Oct 13, 2010
    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!
  97. Oct 13, 2010
    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
  98. Oct 13, 2010
    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 don't expect either.
  99. Oct 13, 2010
    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
  100. Oct 13, 2010
    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
  101. Oct 12, 2010
    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. Collapse

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
    Unfinished, or at the very least, unpolished. [Issue#102, p.112]
  2. Jan 16, 2011
    A successful comeback of the Medal of Honor-series, which is far away from reaching the top-ranks of the shooter genre. The short amount of the single-player campaign is really annoying.
  3. Jan 15, 2011
    Medal of Honor doesn't become the current image of Electronic Arts – probably the most "humane" of all videogame corporations. Danger Close Games' debut reminds of a time when EA was a gloomy assembly line churning out soulless yearly sequels and movie tie-ins.