Medal of Honor (2010) Reviews

• Positive multi-player review

  jey-and-key2010-11-01

  I suppose that this game was made for hardcore players, and I wouldn't know how it suits mediocre players, because I haven't been one for long. Despite, my experience and skills acquired I doubt that a beginner would be frustrated by the game, because the game requires minimal experience. You don't have to learn how to counter the recoil, because it's non existent. It doesn't require that you play for ages to unlock all weapons or perks-that aren't necessarily universally beneficial-, there're few to unlock to anyways. What this game emphasizes on is choices that you and your team mates make. The maps are big enough to always provide alternative route to destination, but are small enough that you have to make right choices to survive (a.i. turning around wrong corner.) The game requires that you analyze (through position of friendlies, and general knowledge of spawn of enemies) the likelihood of certain path being free of campers, and allows you to mount kill-streaks if you choose the right path. It's also adrenaline rich, because killing or getting killed is quick so you have to have top reaction and determination to kill- no shooter skills or long history of playing the game previously. This game was truly designed with advise of tier 1 operators, as they shared their tactical knowledge, hence letting designers implement surroundings that would require their mindset to succeed.

• A good shot, but a bit buggy.

  Rapturous_Rich2010-10-27

  Medal Of Honour returns and, with all the trailers and build-up we'd seen, with some panache too... ah but if only. For the most part, the MOH reboot is a decent effort - an in-depth and heartfelt story more about the soldiers; their brotherhood; inter-dependence and, what we all came for, their sheer bad assery, than it is all-out Michael Bay action like your now annual Call of Duty releases. Going up against the Taliban in dust-filled villages, treacherous rocky mountains etc etc and not being able to see where the shots are coming from is, at first, overwhelming and a little frightening but then it gets all too frustrating, all too quickly once you realise EA might have gone a -little- far with it when it comes to not being able to see more than 50 feet ahead of yourself (see mission: Belly of the Beast). Sure, having actual Tier 1 operators on board with the development has helped add an entire new perspective to show you'll view FPSs for some time - new military lingo you've never heard before, some absolutely crackin' stealth-based missions (still don't quite top Modern Warfare's "All Ghillied Up" or World At War's "Vendetta" though...) and a few other touches really make the game feel a little more filled out than most military shooters but it's around this point where the pros end and the cons start to show. Despite an otherwise brilliant (yet short) campaign and story to boot, there are a lot of bugs in this game. Hit detection, even in offline single player, can be off several times. Sometimes your squad won't move forward even if you do so first. The cover system physics are slightly off at some points, exposing yourself during major firefights - a particular annoyance when playing through on Tier 1 Mode where there are no checkpoints. You die, you restart. As for the multiplayer, it's about as clichéd as any other FPS online nowadays. You play objective games, you get a team full of idiots more obsessed with getting a killstreak going than a little thing called "winning", you play straight up deathmatch, you get a match full of 85% snipers, 9% random campers and 1% runners'n'gunners who, in the end, are the sole reason anyone gets anything done in those matches. It can be fun if you land yourself in a good lobby which, unfortunately, is all down to luck. Surely by now developers could simply integrate some system whereby only people who want to get an objective can play the objective games and base matchmaking on well, actually 'matching' players to equals. Sounds absurd I know... Tl;dr version: Good singleplayer, good story, silly bugs cause great annoyances. Multi is good so long as you get good opponents and not KD whores.

• A polished Medal Of Honor

  wadehatfield982011-10-06

  I never really focused on the Medal of Honor series, but this one was breathtaking. I enjoyed the characters, the story, and the graphics. It's probably the most adrenaline-filled war game I have ever played. The characters were very interesting and you felt for them and the war they were fighting. The graphics were nice, but got buggy and glichy, a little, but not often. The story was straight-forward and amazing, filled with action-packed moments. It's has the saddest ending I've encoutered with emotion. It doesn't take no time to die, but that's cool which, makes it fill real. I think it's top Call of Duty for me. Because it has found a challenge in "gaming warfare". 9.25/10

• A refreshing change of pace.

  Mikesw12342014-02-20

  The following is a review of the single-player campaign only. I'll start out by saying that I never even touched the multiplayer on this game, or any recent game for that matter. It's just not my thing. I will also say that I only payed $7 (with a few other items for free super saver shipping) for this game and I'm certainly glad for that. The other reviewers aren't kidding. That campaign really is on the short side, even by today's standards. The whole package should never have been the full $60 that it was at launch. Despite that though, I really enjoyed the time I did spend with the single-player. It takes place during the opening days of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in early 2002, still a year off from the debacles that would come from the Second Gulf War in Iraq and its aftermath. You play primarily as "Rabbit," a member of an elite "Tier One" squad code-named Neptune (SEAL Team 6) but you'll switch around to a few other characters from time to time (another "Tier One" operator named "Deuce" from Team Wolfpack (Delta Force), an Army Ranger and an attack-helicopter gunner). After all the WWIII fate-of-the-world-rests-in-your-hands type plots in the CODMW Trilogy that were really just excuses for big epic set pieces (not that that's a bad thing but it can get old), I was happy to play a military fps where I was a commando simply doing the actual-type stuff that commandos do in real life today. Much like the old COD and MOH games were essentially greatest-hits-of-WWII, this is greatest-hits-of-the-war-in-Afghanistan and I really liked that. Shooting mechanics are solid for the most part and the weapons all feel good. The shotguns being the one possible exception which I must admit feel noticeably better to use in COD. Graphics and sound are both top notch. I like the fact that everything feels more plausible and the small Tier One teams don't just "go loud" on whole armies by themselves for no reason like pretty much all the recent Call of Dutys (that always bothered me about the Safehouse mission in COD4 helicopter or no). There are of course a few larger scale battles to break up the pace here and there which is appreciated. The on-rails helicopter mission is fun but perhaps a bit too simple. All in all, my biggest complaint is that the game is too short. I would of loved a couple more sniper/stealth missions with Wolfpack, a second more complicated helicopter mission, and at least one more mounted minigun sequence, but in the end, I didn't regret the $7 I spent. One last thing I should mention is the game's title. It should have been called Medal of Honor: Special Forces or maybe Warfighter #1. Anything would have been better than just reusing Medal of Honor like the original ps1 game never existed. If you're hungry for a new sp shooter to play and don't have a lot of money to spend, I'd recommend this game.