Many developers and publishers have wanted to take from the Call of Duty formula ever since the critically acclaimed and commercially successful Modern Warfare entry hit store shelves. From a series that was once at the frontline (pun intended) of FPS recognition in the WWII setting, the collaborative efforts of Danger Close and DICE aren't afraid to admit this change in scenery is heavily influenced by their biggest competitor last generation, despite knowing this could fall under the title "Call of Duty clone". In order to distance itself from pre-release skepticism, Medal of Honor is based on the Afghan War and is promising a more "realistic" approach. With this focus on realism, the question now comes as to whether or not this is the next FPS to have or if it's just another average shooter in an oversaturated genre.
The single player campaign takes place in Afghanistan, in 2002. For half of the game, players assume the role of a DEVGRU operator codenamed "Rabbit", of AFO Neptune. For the remainder, the player alternates between the roles of a Delta Force sniper code-named "Deuce", of AFO Wolfpack, as well as Army Ranger Specialist Dante Adams of the 75th Ranger Regiment, and AH-64 Apache gunner Captain Brad "Hawk" Hawkins for an on-rails copter mission. Throughout this 6 month venture of setting up base in Afghanistan to the first US troops hitting the ground, you'll notice that the action feels more toned-down in credit to the source material. While this focused aim on setting up a recognizable atmosphere to the soldiers overseas is admirable, it usually boils down to the acronym-laden script that's just failing to impress after so many modern-era games being released.
Overall, MoH's (Medal of Honor's) story falls flat in so many regards that it's tough to find a bright spot. The campaign is under 4 hours, the few dramatic situations in the campaign are either shoe-horned in or fall flat, and constant jumping between characters makes the game feel like it has no direction. Although I've never served in the military, I have to question just how realistic it is for a suited General half way around the world to whimsically put lives in unnecessary danger just for the sake of the term "Rangers lead the way". The inconsistency in so many of the few story developments throughout the game leave the player to reserve his/her emotions for the beginning and ending lines presented.
The beautifully-rendered cutscenes and often jaw-dropping vistas are the high points in what seems to be average graphics overall. Visual bugs are rampant throughout the entirety of the singleplayer portion of the game. The framerate drops almost every time your allies are dropping bombs "danger close" of your position and textures pop in quite frequently. There was even one segment where your staging area impaired your vision thanks to all of the dust sweeping in from every angle, then became crystal clear in an instant. Although I've never heard this term, it could be described as environment pop-in. The visual aspects revolving around character modeling look good, and come with some solid physics; however, nighttime missions and times when lighting comes into focus are sub-par in comparison. MoH isn't necessarily an average looking game-for 2010, it just careens all over the visual fidelity scale; there's essentially the same amount of compliments and denunciations you could make for the visuals.
Where the game falters the least is in the sound design department (as expected with any game with DICE's involvement). Although it can be noted that the profusion of the word "f***ing" throughout the game can start to feel like a cliché, the technical design is nearly flawless bar the uninspired soundtrack. The sound of your ears ringing from a nearby grenade to the plethora of different artillery noises in the midst of battle has rarely sounded better. Even the constant radio chatter in the online loading screens shouldn't go unnoticed. The only weird quibble I have with the game is when your comrades decide to sound like they're talking through the radio or not. Sometimes everything you're making out with your squad is through the radio, despite you standing right next to them.
With an ongoing war as the setting, the creative ability of the gameplay could initially be worrisome because it could limit the gamer's overall enjoyment; however, that's not the case with Medal of Honor. While it can initially seem to be a more monotonous approach to shooting bad guys, this toned-down formula from the recent expectation in blockbuster video games can actually become more appreciated because simple events like a chopper going down have more impact. At the same time, you're still able to witness those intense moments when dozens of enemies fill up the screen.
While the overall approach seems to go off with few hitches, that doesn't mean the overall gameplay works as fluidly as it should. Although the controls work well, the level design will often leave you detached from being fully immersed. Getting from point A to point B normally requires you to hit the D-Pad more often then you should, and it's not helped by all of the invisible walls laid out before you. Simply put: If the level design wasn't so inconsistent, you could finish the game in less than 3 hours, even on hard difficulty-which isn't even challenging. To make matters worse, the rubber band enemy AI rarely puts up a challenge, unless they're in the dozens. Even though the friendly AI is handy, I was constantly annoyed by their bantering to complete X objective, despite me already finishing it or en route to finish it. While Medal of Honor's gameplay does work on paper, so many of those gameplay elements fall short of their desired goal.
Although missing any offline/online co-op option, Tier 1 Mode fills that desire for campaign replayability. The rules are as follows: complete each level in the fastest time possible without dying. Certain actions like knife kills, headshots, and consecutive kills slow down time for a few seconds. Being tied in with the EA leaderboards, Tier 1 automatically tracks a variety of different stats that are submitted upon completion of that level. The addictive nature of wanting to shave off seconds of your time to climb up the leaderboards will keep you coming back quite often. The only problem with Tier 1 Mode is you're constantly required to stay online while playing these levels. This became a problem for me when progressing through certain levels then suddenly being disconnected from EA's servers. Although this didn't happen often, it seems that making this mode available for non-online players should've been something of expectancy since the mode's inception.
With DICE working at the competitive online helm of MoH, the meeting of the middle road between Call of Duty and Battlefield comes full circle in this reboot. You have both classes-Rifleman, Spec Ops, and Sniper-and support actions (which are essentially killstreaks). Support actions either help the team through defensive or offensive means. While the offensive support actions are what we've typically seen in the recent Call of Duty games, the defensive support actions help your team through passive means, with flak jackets or improved ammo. You're also able to acquire these actions by either killing enemies, racking up kill assists, or by objective-based means. Although this encourages teamwork, there's really nothing beyond nuances that makes it feel like a shameless copy. While copying doesn't always mean the experience will be worse, Medal of Honor doesn't bring anything that hasn't been integrated better by its competition. Certain facets like bad vehicle handling and boring leveling show that most hardcore FPS fans won't enjoy the competitive multiplayer. If you're well acquainted with FPS', you'll probably reach Tier 1 Warfighter (Highest rank) for one class in a weekend-if not sooner.
Although the reboot of Medal of Honor is great news for old school FPS fans, this revision of the series could've been much better. Medal of Honor isn't necessarily a bad game. In fact, it's quite good in aspects that certain FPS fans may appreciate; at the same time, it has just as many bad/average qualities. It certainly attains some redeemable qualities that may satiate a few FPS gamers out there, but the overall lack of clear direction makes this one of 2010's biggest disappointments.
coolbeans' *RotteN* badge
Game Rant Writes "It's been over a decade since fans have seen the Medal of Honor franchise on consoles in any capacity, and it's about time EA brought it back."
Medal of Honor 2010 was a good start for a modern reboot. The campaign was fantastic. Multiplayer wasn't great but that's DICE's fault. I'd love if they went back to that game and gave it a proper sequel.
PS1 MOH 1999 and 2000 (Underground) and Allied Assault PC is my childhood.. it's still soo good and it holds up. Not to mention Michael Giacchino's soundtrack is one of the best video game soundtracks ever made. Even if you weren't born in early to mid 90's go listen to the main theme of Allied Assault and you will be overloaded from nostalgia.
I miss this franchise a lot.
I’ve always thought that MOH and Battlefield should be separate…
Have MOH as the full fledged single player with an amazing store and whatnot. And a basic multiplayer just to have multiplayer. Sorta like how the MOH reboot was.
And then have BF as the full fledged multiplayer with all effort put into that and ditch the single player. Maybe add Commander back in.
Only in a perfect world.
Oh man medal of honor on pc was awesome back in the day. Multi-player was fun. Joined my first clan on medal of honor. Definitely deserves a comeback. But needs to be on the same level or surpass COD. Since it came out before that ip in 1999 to avoid embarrassment.
I'll be the weird guy in the room and say I actually loved Warfighter. I thought the squad mechanics made it stand out a bit and thought the shooting felt good. Put a lot of time into the multiplayer.
Xfire writes "As you'll soon learn, while it is true that some popular banned video games do at least warrant the censorship or ban they received, some games were banned from sale for some pretty weird and radical reasons."
i dont get censorship in games.
they have warnings on the boxings, age ratings, drug use warnings, strong language and sexual themes and many more.
its not so much the government's job to censor, as it is for parents to make sure their kids dont play those games. and those who are easily disturbed or sensitive, should stay away from them.
i do understand that some things might be triggering for some but.... why do ppl suck so much lol.
but being in debt before 18 or 21 is highly acceptable somehow ha
seriously.
I’m glad there’s not much censorship in the UK towards video games. Reading bully was banned confused me as i don’t recall that at all.
Nintendo has always been bashed for its censorship (green blood in MK controversy) and then they gave us some dark moments like Crocomire’s death in Super Metroid and even let us strangle people to death with the Wii controller. It’s like they have tried at times but there image is very much Cemented as family friendly so I don’t think they will ever be able to stray far from that.
I remember my mom coming home from work with a copy of Thrill Kill and saying “I heard this games banned so I got you a copy” 🙌
Honestly the game wasn’t even that bad, there’s far worse content in books and movies.
honestly, its up to the parents and the players on what kind of experience they want to have, not the publisher.
Stephen from Leviathyn provides a brief glimpse at various studies conducted in the medical community concluding that video games provide physical benefits to humans.
I hope everyone enjoyed the review :D. It's kind of sad to think this is probably the best Medal of Honor game this gen imo. I had such high hopes for Airbourne and this official reboot, but both are just subpar entries into the series.
I agree with this, but I would gave this game like 3/10 at max. Its really a horrible experience from SP perspective and I don't see point in MP, when I could at this time played Bad Company 2.
MOH was a 6/10 for me, I really liked how they did the SP, but the graphical flaws really brought down the game, and no to mention the lackluster MP, though enjoyable at times, suffered from bad hit detection, OP weapons, plagued snipers, and no incentive to level up.
Respect for actually reviewing this game. You actually took your time writing and I agree with a lot of things you say. I thought the game wasn't bad, but it suffered because of the annoying bugs (a lot of these bugs occur in MP). Like I wanted to play and whenever I spawn, I get killed instantly. I thought it was me or that I just sucked, but after asking around it wasn't my fault at all. Another one is the moment they shoot you, you are done for. This seems pretty realistic, but the game gets stuck. I don't know if these are problems that still haven't been fixed, but a couple months ago they were still there. The support for this game is very poor. The online was just messed up. It had potentional, true. The campaign wasn't spectacular, the map design was very good, but as a player you wouldn't explore the map like you did in Bad Company 2.
MOH was a 8.5 at release. After the patches and things that EA did not fix and ruined the population went down a ton. Making the game a 7/10. A 3 or 5 is ridiculous. The story is actually pretty good and the game works.