User Score
5.8

Mixed or average reviews- based on 28 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 28
  2. Negative: 6 out of 28
Buy On

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. D.V.
    Apr 25, 2004
    9
    Pretty cool multiplayer but it could be better.
  2. MikeM.
    Nov 11, 2003
    5
    No real improvement over the last version of Medal of Honor.
  3. JulieJ.
    Nov 17, 2003
    8
    Cool graphics, but the game was to easy.
  4. CharlesW.
    Nov 24, 2003
    7
    This game has amazing graphics...but on the other hand it's to short and there's not that much of an improvment from the last game.
  5. [Anonymous]
    Dec 5, 2003
    10
    This game is keeping in tact with the tactical scenery that medal of honor has always delivered.
  6. GrayL.
    Jan 10, 2004
    10
    Exentent game more life like.
  7. Bloodhawk
    Jan 10, 2004
    7
    better graphics but so many glitches and game flaws. you can literally pass it in one sitting if you felt so inclined.
  8. JoshM.
    Aug 17, 2004
    5
    The worst graphics for any game i've played not even worth the money. EA did better on the MOH PC games.
  9. ChrisB.
    Jan 9, 2005
    1
    A terribly flawed, mediocre game? The worst shooter I've ever played? Both? Yes. Not only is this game extremely buggy and crash-prone (so buggy, in fact, that I exchanged 3 copies of it before coming to the conclusion that it was, in fact, just a terribly-made game) but it does nothing to even remotely make up for it. The graphics are awful - only slightly better than the ORIGINAL A terribly flawed, mediocre game? The worst shooter I've ever played? Both? Yes. Not only is this game extremely buggy and crash-prone (so buggy, in fact, that I exchanged 3 copies of it before coming to the conclusion that it was, in fact, just a terribly-made game) but it does nothing to even remotely make up for it. The graphics are awful - only slightly better than the ORIGINAL PSX Medal of Honor game. The AI is most definitely NO BETTER AT ALL than the first-ever Playstation game. The controls are terrible, even for a console shooter, and the lackluster level design should win some sort of award of mediocrity. Avoid. Expand
  10. RobertU.
    Oct 23, 2006
    0
    I thought this was a good game until the singapore sling level where you meet the aussie guy.......he gets in the way of you when he gives you that charge thing so that you cant go up the stairs! So now I have to go and spoil the experience by getting the cheats.
  11. MichaelR.
    Nov 10, 2007
    5
    Its a decent game and a great addition to a collection of WWII video games.Not mind blowing but it has its moments
  12. TimD.
    Nov 10, 2003
    9
    Amazing!!
  13. ErnestP.
    Nov 13, 2003
    6
    It is a cool game because you can play 2 players in game mode....but other then that it is just an Ok games....it is not worth spending the money on it.
  14. JonathanB.
    Nov 16, 2003
    8
    Great game but a little to short.
  15. DanS.
    Nov 24, 2003
    6
    I loved MOH Frontline and was equally psyched for this one. Not only did this game take a long time to get into, but it was over before I blinked. THe shooting is not accurate (I.e. when you hit someone in the head, they don't drop). Save your money for Max Payne 2 if you want to play a FPS.
  16. LiamB.
    Nov 26, 2003
    7
    Way too short and easy.
  17. AT.
    Nov 27, 2003
    2
    I loved the frontline but hate this one. Graphics are terrible, levels extreamly easy, and the weapons are very unrealistic. Come on, why do I have to shoot some one 5 times with a 30-6 rifle?
  18. ManuelR.
    Dec 23, 2003
    9
    I loved it because its got better graphics than the last 1, its got cool levels, though its too short!!!!!!
  19. Apr 26, 2014
    6
    I loved this game back in the day, but going back on it, it was just an okay experience. The AI was good for its time, and the shooting mechanics brilliant, but the overall experience was mediocre. However, if we include the storyline in this equation, the game was oustanding.
  20. Dec 16, 2015
    0
    This game is trash. The A.I. is dumb, many of the enemies have stupid attacks (no really high ranking officer, running at the Americans with a sword raised above your head is a perfect strategy), the campaign is the generic "Japanese bad, Americans good" patriotic and more-than-slightly-racist bull**** and the game's pathetic attempts at "realism" only result in the game feeling more datedThis game is trash. The A.I. is dumb, many of the enemies have stupid attacks (no really high ranking officer, running at the Americans with a sword raised above your head is a perfect strategy), the campaign is the generic "Japanese bad, Americans good" patriotic and more-than-slightly-racist bull**** and the game's pathetic attempts at "realism" only result in the game feeling more dated than a Ford Cortina. Oh, the controls can only be described as garbage and the level design is just abysmal.

    One of the worst games I have ever played, period.
    Expand

Awards & Rankings

26
#26 Most Discussed Xbox Game of 2003
Metascore
65

Mixed or average reviews - based on 23 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 23
  2. Negative: 2 out of 23
  1. Feels a bit like Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor in that an attempt to make an epic WWII Pacific Theater experience results in a product with brilliant touches mixed with mediocrity.
  2. Edge Magazine
    50
    On retreading the levels enemy attacks become predictable puppet shows, with mad-eyed soldiers lining up to get killed exactly where they did many times before. It's the kind of repetition more commonly associated with lightgun games these days. [Christmas 2003, p.109]
  3. You can, in practically one extended sitting, blow through the entirety of this dumbed-down, bloodless, sanitized version of America's hard-fought victory. [Dec/Jan 2004, p.88]