GameSpy: Medal of Honor Review

In the end, MoH is really two different games. The campaign stands up against (and in many ways surpasses) the super-soldier competition. The multiplayer, on the other hand, eschews the elements that define the campaign. EA and DICE would have been wise to retain the realism, giving the multiplayer a defining characteristic. Instead, what you get is an amalgam that is best labeled "Battlefield Warfare" -- an admittedly entertaining concoction, but one that tastes awfully familiar.

Read Full Story >>
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
BattleAxe3293d ago (Edited 3293d ago )

Hopefully this will teach EA that they can't short gaomes on content and still get good scores from gaming sites. Say all you
want about MW2, but it came with 16 maps, 13 game modes, 23 co-op missions and a good single player mission on DAY ONE. Not to mention how well supported the game has been with map packs.

With Battlefield they could manage to get away with the low amount of content it came with because it has vehicles and large maps with fully destructable environments, of which MoH has none.

darren_poolies3293d ago

How well supported the game has been, are you being serious?
Two, terrible over-priced map packs, you call that well supported?

You my friend are very easily pleased.

BulletToothtony3293d ago

totally agree.. 8 little maps for 24 players it's the dumbest thing for fps

couldn't take 10 steps without getting sniped by campers which there was plenty..

i just got back home from selling my copy.. i'm not a fanboy.. i wanted to love the game but dice messed it up..

oh well.. back to cod4 sadly!

BattleAxe3293d ago (Edited 3293d ago )


Easily pleased? So you think you're getting a great geal with MoH's 8 maps and 4 game modes(not playable on all maps) and a 5 hour campaign? Do the math..... We haven't seen any new maps on BF:BC2 yet, so what makes you think that DICE is going to invest any time into this "side job" of theirs?

Also look at CoD: WaW which was released with 11 competative game modes, 4 player campaign co-op, 4 player Nazi Zombies, a great single player campaign and was then supported with 3 map packs.( Thats right, packs that contain actual Maps)

DICE is going to do the same thing with MoH that they did with BF:BC2, by coming out with "Mode Packs" and maybe if you're lucky they'll come out with co-op except it will cost you an extra $10. Fortunately Battlefield is a great game, but theres no way I'm gonna get "bent over" on more than one EA game that lacks content.

darren_poolies3292d ago

I never said that MOH was a great deal, did I say that anywhere in my previous post? err no. I also never said anything about CoD: WaW not being well supported because as it goes I believe WaW was supported brilliantly.

What I did do was question how you came to the conclusion that MW2 was well supported when it has only had 2 map packs that were unbelievably overpriced.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3292d ago
Pacman3213293d ago

Was hoping for this to turn out to be a good competitor to COD, but that isn't going to happen.

StanLee3293d ago

Come on!! Seriously?! The game looked mediocre from day 1. From the first reveal it looked average at best.

BYE3293d ago

You make it sound like MW2 or Black Ops are something special.

They are average FPSs as well that don't reach Bad Company 2's quality level.

DaTruth3293d ago (Edited 3293d ago )

COD spends more ad revenue at these magazines!

Question answered!

Reviews are irrelevant now! They are just a way of extorting advertising money from publishers!

Disclaimer: I don't play any of the popular FPS's, so I am not a fanboy of any!

Soldierone3293d ago

It is, it totally is. Give it a chance. It plays like COD only with better features. Its a bit restricted in terms that its the first of the series with alot of new ideas, but its defo a game worth playing and give COD a run for its money.

crzyjackbauer3293d ago

c'mon you can expect much from a game that has music from linkin park

darren_poolies3293d ago (Edited 3293d ago )

I expect godly things from a game that features music by Linkin Park. ;)

Shackdaddy8363293d ago

Whats with all the well known websites giving this game low scores while the other websites give it high scores? Isnt it usually the other way around....

Johandevries3293d ago

Depends. Failure sites like IGN give non-mainstream, niche or just unknown games really harsh ratings while small networks balance this better. I remember all the f*cking nines and perfects for Modern Warfare 2. Even If I'd give it a four out of ten, I'd consider myself santa claus

NinjaAssassin3293d ago

I also remember IGN and all the other mainstream sites giving COD MW2 super high scores and then I got the game and was like WTF? That game was way overrated.

I'm sick of IGN and most of the other mainstream sites. They are so unfair to some games and then they always way overrate all the hyped, long standing franchise games. MOH is AT LEAST as good as MW and actually better in some ways.

Soldierone3293d ago

I dont understand at all.

Medal of Honor is new, and because it combined Battlefield with Call of Duty, its too familar to be good? Yet how many reviews are we going to have for the new Call of Duty that praise its gameplay aspect? You know the same aspects we saw in 3 other titles with the same name?

That and anyone that writes a review stating its too similar to Battlefield is writing a review based on the beta. Which did look and feel like Battlefield, the actual game is entirely differnt and plays more cleanly.

ceedubya93293d ago

I think people are being too harsh on it. Its better than a lot of similar games, but just not better than the best. The multiplayer is fun but needs some work here and there, but its okay as it is. In some ways, it makes me want to go back and play Bad Company 2, though.

Johandevries3293d ago (Edited 3293d ago )

I saw this coming from far distance.

Anyway, this game should have done something original with WW2 (there's still a lot possible) but instead of this rushed cash-in, been made with a lot of care and time. Airborne had a strong basis but it failed because (1) the engine was not optimized at all and there were many, many glitches (2) and because the campaign was short, the story wasn't original and the multiplayer took 3 patches of 1 gb each to become in the least bit playable at all. Though, at least the gameplay was quite innovative, but MoH twenty ten's gp mechanics are certainly not.

They make the same mistakes again, and ironically, switching the MP work to a better dev hasnt delivered us anything, because this studio is trying to rush everything right now, just like Airborne MP seemed really really rushed.

Examples like this sequel make me pessimistic (again). hope devs and publishers of games like Duke Nukem Forever, Far Cry 3 and Crysis 2 learn from the mistakes of the past.

Johandevries3293d ago

Hope anyone remembers that in the beginning this sequel was called Operation Anaconda and that at that time it had a totally different lead designer than the end result has. It was not politically correct to make a realistic game about a real life operation and that is why EA decided to fire the poor guy and hire someone else, as well as adding DICE to the process.

Whatever you may think of this: this sequel could have been a lot more original (it does not offer anything more than the already low level of Modern Warfare), but there is no time money and patience for réal experiments.

Show all comments (24)