Review: Medal of Honor

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

They're so indistinguishable from each other, that when one of them says "Come with me," you actually have to look around for a second to see who's talking.

Were they wearing full-face helmets? Apparently that was a major problem with another title recently.

I believe I have stumbled upon the new epidemic of our times: Game Related Hearing Loss.

Apparently it is as I expected: a chance for a good campaign was sidelined in order to jump on the multiplayer bandwagon.

Hmmm, this game seems to be getting average reviews at most places.

Well, at least this didn't just give it an average review because it 'copied' off CoD. You cannot copy of a game that has copied off a game that has copied off a game. Off a game. And another.

It can really annoy me when CoD can do the same thing year in, year out and get amazingly high review scores, yet when anything else does it it is bad and a downright copy and gets low reviews for it? That just isn't right.

Now on topic, like I said at the start, seems like this is getting average reviews everywhere.

DrNobody18:
As Shakespeare would say, a rose by any other name... Though, in all honesty, you said it much better, a Taliban by any other f@#%ing name is still a f@#%ing Taliban...

So, according to your - and the reviewer's - logic, Russians and Germans are still the spawn of Satan in semantic disguise!?

Anyway: Not EA lacks "sensitivity"; your black-and-white moral at the end does. After all, those "f@#%ing Taliban" used to be the good guys back in the 80s; mercenaries, paid by the US.

TheBluesader:
I don't know if anyone has already mentioned this, but the whole name change (from Taliban to Opposing Forces) actually makes the game more realistic. My brother-in-law, an Afghan War marine vet, says that they always called the guys they were fighting "Opposing Forces" because, and this is clearly reflected in the game, the Taliban itself is only one component of the confederated groups that are all having a being-bad-guys field day in Afghanistan at the moment.

The remnants of the Taliban are fighting against us, NATO and the Afghan Army with Al-Qaeda flunkies from a dozen countries, Chechen separatists / Islamists, Iranian "military advisers," local Afghani warlords who oppose the Taliban, the new Afghani government, and any other powers attempting to reduce their local control, and a whole host of other guys of various native and non-native ethnicities and sects trying to take advantage of a disrupted situation to further personal / ideological / political goals. Some of the same groups are also fighting in Iraq where they ally themselves with local anti-government / anti-American forces.

So by changing the name, EA is actually making the game more realistic. Am I the only one who's noted this?

Yeah, I noticed it, but I've got military connections too (friends and relatives), so I don't think it's something the general public knows. I think for a lot of people, the words Al Qaeda, Taliban and terrorist are interchangeable. All of which probably would've caused equal amounts of controversy.

axiom5000:

DrNobody18:
As Shakespeare would say, a rose by any other name... Though, in all honesty, you said it much better, a Taliban by any other f@#%ing name is still a f@#%ing Taliban...

So, according to your - and the reviewer's - logic, Russians and Germans are still the spawn of Satan in semantic disguise!?

Anyway: Not EA lacks "sensitivity"; your black-and-white moral at the end does. After all, those "f@#%ing Taliban" used to be the good guys back in the 80s; mercenaries, paid by the US.

Way to circumvent the point, but okay. Would it make you feel better if Germans where the 'black and grey' guys? Russians the 'red guys'? The point trying to me made is calling them the 'opposing force' is bulls#!t, plain and simple, we damn know full well who they are, call them that.

I thought the beta was absolute crap. I figured the game wasnt worth my money. From the overall scores its been getting it looks like I wasnt wrong.

I'll say it again. They should have kept destruction 2.0 in for the multiplayer. It would have been interesting to see the mechanic used for those large structures. Without it there doesn't seem like there's much reason to use the c4 and rocket launchers.

Painful illusion:
I see medal of Honor as the underdog against COD. I really wanted this game to be better than Black ops..."sigh".. maybe in a few years. I can only hope they do better.

Personally I see MOH as a back drop to EA's shooter flag ship Battlefield 3 that will come out soon as well as testing the waters on the sensitivity of today's conflicts, from a military stand point I don't understand the problem, it's a fricken game and why aafes banned the game when it was supported by the DA (Department of the Army), but, I really don't understand the civilian stand point (no offense). As far as games go I was supremely disappointed with COD MW2, I still find COD4 and COD2 the best of the series, unless black ops is a walk on water moment, the series is tarnished in my eyes, and I look forward immensely to Battle field 3 and have high hopes for the game, I do hope MOH learns from this and develops a much better story line, goes crazy with the multi-player and tells Aafes to go F%$# itself since the game stop with the MOST RESERVED GAMES WAS ON A MILITARY INSTALLATION BEFORE THEY BANNED THE GAME FROM BEING SOLD ON BASE with somewhere around the hundreds games reserved (being conservative with numbers). I sort of feel that there was so much more to be had here, but, that it was held back, and this is why I feel that BF3 is gonna be insane. These are my observations, feel free to flame all you want.

DrNobody18:
As Shakespeare would say, a rose by any other name... Though, in all honesty, you said it much better, a Taliban by any other f@#%ing name is still a f@#%ing Taliban...

More on topic though, kinda disappointed from what I've seen of this game myself, it looks to be nothing more than a blatant attempt to try and beat the CoD series by copying the CoD series. Who in their right mind thought that would work, exactly?

To be honest and for the sake of context, CoD did borrow heavily from MoH originally. Justputting that out there.

OT:
I like the darker tones(visualy) that are in this video. I have BFBC2 and my brother has MW2, so i can appriciate a game that doesnt wash out the camera. Although that speaking strictly from THIS video of this game.

Whats with those boxes? look in the part where Steve is dicussing the Taliban, the camera runs over to them. Those are EVERYWHERE in all shooters. Are they actually used by militaries, are they modern day crates, or something? Someone please fill me in

Side note, I'm not fixing any of those typos above, I'm very tired.

00:07 ... did... did someone just shout out "zombie jesus"?

Thank god I didnt pre-order it. Id rather get BC2.

Scrumpmonkey:

Onyx Oblivion:
Video no worky. For me.

Anyway, I might get this, since I'm not buying any Activision games anymore. Used or new. Looks solid enough, and comes with Frontline on PS3, iirc.

Ahhhh a fellow man with a stance, im also off Blizard products but mainly becuase im a million miles past WoW at this point and Starcraft is well... Starcraft 2. I do like RTS but Starcraft is the embodiment of everything that can be wrong with it.

Care to elaborate as to why Starcraft is the embodiment of everything that can be wrong with it?

I just think it's funny. All these big ass companies are scrambling to the top of the "realistic FPS" hill to try to push each other off. Duke Nukem Forever is going to come along and just waltz up to the top of the "UNrealistic FPS" hill and make an ocean liner full of money.

Tsaba:

Painful illusion:
I see medal of Honor as the underdog against COD. I really wanted this game to be better than Black ops..."sigh".. maybe in a few years. I can only hope they do better.

Personally I see MOH as a back drop to EA's shooter flag ship Battlefield 3 that will come out soon as well as testing the waters on the sensitivity of today's conflicts, from a military stand point I don't understand the problem, it's a fricken game and why aafes banned the game when it was supported by the DA (Department of the Army), but, I really don't understand the civilian stand point (no offense). As far as games go I was supremely disappointed with COD MW2, I still find COD4 and COD2 the best of the series, unless black ops is a walk on water moment, the series is tarnished in my eyes, and I look forward immensely to Battle field 3 and have high hopes for the game, I do hope MOH learns from this and develops a much better story line, goes crazy with the multi-player and tells Aafes to go F%$# itself since the game stop with the MOST RESERVED GAMES WAS ON A MILITARY INSTALLATION BEFORE THEY BANNED THE GAME FROM BEING SOLD ON BASE with somewhere around the hundreds games reserved (being conservative with numbers). I sort of feel that there was so much more to be had here, but, that it was held back, and this is why I feel that BF3 is gonna be insane. These are my observations, feel free to flame all you want.

I really have to agree with you on all your points. MW2 was a real let down for the most part and didn't really deliver how COD had (even though it probably was hard to). I am looking forward to BF3 though, I'm sure Dice and EA will make the game how you said it..INSANE.

This is one of the few escapists reviews I just completely disagree with.

The single player in this game is phenomenal, one of the best FPS single players stories I have seen in the past few years. It does what Call of Duty doesn't, and just surpasses that last step. Yes, the characters are bland and sometimes unoriginal, but it makes you care about them. In one part of the game, it has you holding out on an Alamo-esque area being ambushed by the Taliban. You really don't see any way out of it, and you honestly start to get worried. It reminds me of CoD4's "OMG" moments, just expanded.

The multiplayer on the other hand, is where I believe the game starts to dwindle down. Its nothing new, and just seems very bland run-of-the-mill while not taking very many risks. It really has to much of a BC2 feel to it, which really turned me off of it.

chewbacca1010:
Another three-hour shooter set in the modern day.

*yawn*

"Because I only play games that are colorful and shiny an artistic because I am an artistic gamer and if it doesn't have any art in it then it is a bland game"

That's you.

better than that Hollywood arcade style easy ass COD.. I like it, and one two shots kill.. instead of emptying a whole clip into a bad guy online and he turns around and kills you..

disappointing sounding already
was hoping it'd kick CoD's butt but hey
rental #1 now, and #2 coming November

COD and MOH, how can one be worse from the other..? They look exactly the same!

Gritty, generic and repetetive FPS..

That was the most concise, well thought out, and educated review I've seen on this website yet. Hopefully you can replace the other reviewers on this site. I haven't seen a review that good in a while. Great job Steve.

It's actually not a bad game, the campaign may be short but it's quite intense. Although I don't intend to touch the multiplayer I would prefer that EA stuck to their guns with the use of the word Taliban. But apparently it's ok to show you killing someone else's father, husband, brother, son but not ok to see relatives from our side die.

That last line was pure awesome.

I really enjoy the way this game plays online, actually, it's the main reason I bought it. Seeing as DICE worked on it, I had to.

I think what I enjoy most is switching between Medal of Honor/Bad Company 2 and Modern Warfare 2... they play very differently online, but not in a way like Reach, where I'd just get frustrated and quit. Between this and Black Ops, I'm good for FPS games this holiday. :3

DrNobody18:
As Shakespeare would say, a rose by any other name... Though, in all honesty, you said it much better, a Taliban by any other f@#%ing name is still a f@#%ing Taliban...

More on topic though, kinda disappointed from what I've seen of this game myself, it looks to be nothing more than a blatant attempt to try and beat the CoD series by copying the CoD series. Who in their right mind thought that would work, exactly?

Yeah...I dont really understand why they do this. I mean...I sometimes wonder if I would be a fantastic company leader in the gaming world. When a game is "the best of its category" like CoD is, it dominates it. There is not always such a game, but sometimes. WoW is another. When trying to earn money it seems feeble to try to copy the BEST. When you know you probably wont beat that game anyway. Why would people settle for second best?

It would be much smarter to either 1: make your own complete niche. Like AoE did in comparison with for example warcraft or C&C or 2: make something completely original. Like Bioshock did in the shooter category. Bioshock feels a lot like a missed opportunity to me, but its still an awesome game. And its helped a long a LOT by the fact that its simply so different. WHY are gaming companies not seeing this?

Its easier to be number one if you invent your own little silly arena than if you try to run faster than Usain Bolt :|

Interesting review. I'd rate it the same, but have a much different outlook on the single player campaign vs. multiplayer. The former I enjoyed, apart from misfires with the scripted events and an overall disjointed arc. It has great atmosphere and pacing, and I like how all the different perspectives coincide. The multiplayer, however, I found to be an exercise in serenity I simply can't pass. I won't rant about it here; suffice it to say this is the first game who's MP has frustrated me to the point of turning it off and walking away.

Multiplayer i nice.
Singelplayer has itīs moments, but is ugly.

Multiplayer should have been a DLC for BF2 imo though.

Great end to that review Steve!

Scrumpmonkey:
I mean we already have Bad Comapny 2 which reall covers much of the same ground especially online. (Bad Company is also argumably a better game than COD, well on the PC at least.)

Very arguable. The multiplayer was awesome (and still is) but I, personally, found the SP unacceptably terrible.

OT: Glad to see you being the one to review the game, Steve. I find your review are gearing up to be pretty much the best ones on the site, and this was really good.

It was, however, something I totally and completely disagree with.

The game is pinned as derivative and you could pretty much agree with that - helicopter shooting, icy places and desert places. And the story is probably as bland as you expect it to be. But, as a hardcore Call Of Duty fan, I've already heard (and seen) two things that pretty much warrant a purchase for me:

1) It feels really different gameplay-wise. It probably isn't, but I did see one thing - the impact of the bullet here is far more noticeable and powerful than both in MW2 and in BC2.

2) You said it was heavily scripted as if it were bad. To me, it's anything but bad.

Many people love heavily-scripted games. If it weren't for the scripts, set-pieces, the rollercoaster - I would've been severy unimpressed with MW2.

Now, I don't know whether those are good scripts - BC2 tried them, too, and that made me hate their SP even more. But there is always place for a warfare game that relies heavily on situations, not on the core mechanics.

3) They say "fuck" a lot. Hehehehe. No, bad Journey, bad.

So, I do value your opinion, but this kind of looks like a "buy" to me.

whaleswiththumbs:

To be honest and for the sake of context, CoD did borrow heavily from MoH originally. Justputting that out there.

Have to point out they had the right. Infinity Ward was made out of a large portion of 2015, Inc. employees.

I dont know what to say about this game, it looks very........bland, and for a modern fps thats quite an achievement.

I guess the only legacy to gaming that MoH will have is the infamous "moan moan moan Taliban" saga, which feels dead already.

I was hoping this to be the rebirth of the modern shooter. Sigh.. "Hands money to Call of duty".

MoH may not be the best this gen, but it sure as hell kicked thew fuck outta COD in the PS2 days.

Tdc2182:

chewbacca1010:
Another three-hour shooter set in the modern day.

*yawn*

"Because I only play games that are colorful and shiny an artistic because I am an artistic gamer and if it doesn't have any art in it then it is a bland game"

That's you.

How delightfully ignorant of you. I decide I don't like a game based on the incredibly short length of its single player and you conclude that I am a typical artsy hipster type gamer. That is one magical jump in logic there, champ.

Funnily enough, I also didn't like Modern Warfare 2 because of the single player length, while very much liking the first, so it looks like your foolish little assessment is a touch off the mark.

Thanks for playing though.

JourneyThroughHell:
2) You said it was heavily scripted as if it were bad. To me, it's anything but bad.

Many people love heavily-scripted games. If it weren't for the scripts, set-pieces, the rollercoaster - I would've been severy unimpressed with MW2.

Now, I don't know whether those are good scripts - BC2 tried them, too, and that made me hate their SP even more. But there is always place for a warfare game that relies heavily on situations, not on the core mechanics.

I don't disagree with you, but this is very much in the eye of the beholder. Scripting does allow for more dramatic narrative moments than a purely dynamic game, but my problem in MOH is that the scripts are just too obvious and predictable. You kind of feel like the game is happening to you rather than the other way around. In other words, the mission is just going to do what the designer wants it to do, regardless of your specific actions.

Steve Butts:

JourneyThroughHell:
2) You said it was heavily scripted as if it were bad. To me, it's anything but bad.

Many people love heavily-scripted games. If it weren't for the scripts, set-pieces, the rollercoaster - I would've been severy unimpressed with MW2.

Now, I don't know whether those are good scripts - BC2 tried them, too, and that made me hate their SP even more. But there is always place for a warfare game that relies heavily on situations, not on the core mechanics.

I don't disagree with you, but this is very much in the eye of the beholder. Scripting does allow for more dramatic narrative moments than a purely dynamic game, but my problem in MOH is that the scripts are just too obvious and predictable. You kind of feel like the game is happening to you rather than the other way around. In other words, the mission is just going to do what the designer wants it to do, regardless of your specific actions.

Granted, but it does that in most games, whether they are heavily scripted or not.

Obvious and predictable - aye, those are problems. But the missions are pretty much always going the way the designer wants them to, in pretty much every shooter I can think of.

I've always found the open, obvious scripts better than the pretention of freedom, ala Bad Company 2 (which is, despite all I have said, a good game) - here's a chopper, you don't have to fly it but you'd better, cause this is a heli sequence.

Now, I love Modern Warfare 2 more than every grown, sane, Russian (!) man should. And there, the mission pretty much always goes the same way. Can't fault it for that.

I can however fault games that don't have that - i.e. Crysis, a very sandbox game that I found inferior to CoD 4 in every way, because it didn't know what to do with it's freedom.

Other reasons:

1) A game with scripts always has a point. There are no driving sections that are just there to transport you from one place to another - if there is driving, something is happening.

2) The story and gameplay merging is always seemless - see Modern Warfare 2. There's no jarring disconnet between the story and the shooting, and that's good.

Okay, I'm not being entirely fair, Steve, since all of this is just my assumptions that MoH might be like that based on my perception of MW2 while you have actually played the game. It's just that, as stupid as that sounds, I really like scripts.

Well, I believe that Medal of Honor has potential, whereas call of duty is something we've all seen 2 times now, so I can take an accurate guess of whats going to happen.

It's just sad that EA received so much bad feedback(due to the taliban) , but its weird how MW2, Black Ops and indeed COD 4 didn't. Maybe they're bribing all the newspapers, Michael Atkinson and all censorship attorneys.

As for the review, well, interesting, to say the least.

I think we're all missing the important question here. What the hell happened to the Gaming Stash?

Painful illusion:
I see medal of Honor as the underdog against COD. I really wanted this game to be better than Black ops..."sigh".. maybe in a few years. I can only hope they do better.

All the trailers and interviews really really made me want this game to be amazing. I hope it might be worth buying used in 6 months, but I don't know. Hopefully Danger Close gets a sequel.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here