Was Medal of Honor Rushed to Market?

Reviews are coming in quick for EA's Medal of Honor reboot. The first person shooter, which EA has touted as a viable competitor to Activision's Call of Duty franchise, has been taking more criticism than expected over the last 24 hours.

To put it simply, reviewers are calling the game average. To start, the single player portion of the game is short. Too short for a $60 game, apparently. The game's campaign mode reportedly takes around 4-6 hours to complete. Now, it may be fair to say that the game's campaign is short in order to deliver an epic, true story that does not drag on. Reviewers might refute this, however, by pointing out that the game still seems to suffer from numerous technical and graphical issues. The framerate is inconsistent to awful, textures pop in late, and graphical and sound glitches are common.

Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
DelbertGrady3296d ago

"After all, the last 3 Call of Duty games certainly seem to have a lot of legs to them in the competitive online-multiplayer world. However, Medal of Honor does not seem to be impressing too much in this area either."

As suspected. Angry COD fan trying his best to make MOH look bad.

isntchrisl3296d ago

Not at all, actually. I was seriously considering MoH. Ended up getting BC2. I've actually become burned out on CoD. Don't throw me into your fanboy wars.

morganfell3295d ago (Edited 3295d ago )

You should reconsider getting MoH. The SP Campaign for me is more preferable than CoD or MW2. The missions feel more realistic and intimate. You aren't saving the world, just a handful of people. It fits.

The game isn't realistic but it fairs better than COD in that department. Still it is far off the mark and it misses history (Army Special Forces - ODA 555, and members of ODAs 525 and 535 - with the Northern Alliance took Bagram. Not the SEALs and the NA. The SEALs nor CAG were even in the country at that time.

Here is what I wrote about the MP in another post:

They could not fix all of the beta issues. True. The game actually feels nothing like the beta. After running quite a bit of MP in the beta I almost cancelled my reservation. But I have been on since last night, logging about 8-9 hours total of solid play and the actual game, apart from some minor server issues, is surprising. Teamwork occurs in several game types like you never see in CoD.

Dave13513295d ago

The multiplayer is really good and i love it but thats not the same for the singleplayer. I tried to like it i really did but its just plain and simple LAME with alot of problems. The single player deserves a 6 or even a 7 but multiplayer should have had a higher score.

mittwaffen3295d ago

Simple as that, next time around though they may make it amazing.

tacosRcool3295d ago

That what most reviewers are doing to this game. So many good things about MoH and yet they still gibe them decent scores. This dude is a CoD fan that doesn't like MoH and tries to make it known.

isntchrisl3295d ago

No, I'm not. I have no plans to purchase Black Ops. I am burned out on the series and what it has become since MW2. I had a huge interest in MoH and am disappointed to find out that the final product is being considered average by most (check metacritic if you think I'm just being a fanboy). I've been interested in MoH since it was announced. I don't want Activision in charge of any part of the market, to be frank. The article does not slam MoH, nor does it promote CoD. It just states the facts. People are too defensive about these things.

Longrod_Von_Hugendon3295d ago (Edited 3295d ago )

You should really check your sources before talking.

Seem like the majority like MoH.

tanman7773295d ago

Actually, 75 would usually be considered average for an AAA release.

cmrbe3295d ago

At the very least 75 is an above average game. Anything between 7-8 i consider a good game not average at all.

BattleAxe3295d ago

In a 1-10 scale, 5 and under is a garbage game, and its only after 5 that the real ratings begin. 1 - 5 = Garbage 6 = Poor 7 = Mediocre 8 = Good 9 = Great 10 = Excellent

cmrbe3295d ago

So 0-5 is the same?.

You don't make any sense.

pimpmaster3295d ago

stop trying to justify your purchase. you all fell to the hype wagon and went out of your way to buy something that competes with cod and got burned, seriously burned. are you guys joking right now? just look at the metacritic. every single reviewer on there above 80 ive never even heard of before in my life. youve been had by EA with a [email protected] tacular overhyped game than ended up being a copy cat and mediocre at that.

BattleAxe3295d ago

@ cmrbe

Yeah...1 - 5 are pretty much the same.

Example: If you (and I mean you) were to eat plain dog crap, you might give it a 2/10, but if you were eating Dog Crap that had Oreo Cookies mixed in with it you might then rate it a 4/10, but at the end of the day its all just dog crap.

Longrod_Von_Hugendon3295d ago


Are you that hard-up? lol COD has been on a steep decline for awhile now and with the addition of MW2 it's almost but sank that fucker. Treyarch is going to have to pull a hail mary to save that sinking ship so I'd get off that high horse of yours real quick.

If you would have bought MoH you would have realized for yourself that the SP is refreshing change from the typical FPS garbage and the MP is actually fun to play unlike MW2 pos. All MoH needed to beat MW2 was a longer SP and more weapon/attachments and maps. I'm sure a DLC will take care of MP aspect. You can expect next years MoH to improve in all those areas.

The acting was great. The writing was fantastic and the music was phenomenal. Can COD say that for any of their titles? lol No!

cmrbe3295d ago

What purchase?. The topic here is ratings.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 3295d ago
JasonPC360PS3Wii3295d ago

COD fans don't need to make MOH look bad MOH is doing fine on its own.

BattleAxe3295d ago

Not sure why a CoD fan would be angry, because it seems that EA is the one that has dropped the ball.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3294d ago
PimpHandHappy3296d ago

i still play a couple games a day.

on topic
I cant say if it was rushed because i have not played it and will not buy it after all the hype it got with the Taliban being used. You know for a fact the only reason they had added that in the 1st place was for hype and to get ppl talking about the game... I am sick of this sh!t being pulled by these FPS's that are just looking to separate themselves from the crowd. I will rent the game but my 60 has better things 2do... Like Fallout and GT5

alcapwn1803295d ago

Yes, because they were just all lol happy about using the Taliban in the MP. The reason they even had it in the first place was because one way or another you KNOW you are playing as the Taliban in the MP due to versing them in the SP so they decided not to sugar coat it and wanted to just leave it at Taliban. Then they saw veterans and the people they want to have respect from get hurt over it so they had to sugar coat it. Simple as that. Thank you. It is a great game with great MP and a believable and epic Single player.

likedamaster3295d ago

Not rushed, just bad decisions made behind the scenes.

jjank113295d ago

I can't say if it was rushed either but there are some things that seem to have been completely overlooked. I'm hoping they really listen to concerns of the everyday players/fans and start to change/fix a few things.
With that said, I am enjoying the game!

ChronoJoe3295d ago (Edited 3295d ago )

I don't have this game, and I don't care for it.

However I think it's ludicrous that a journalist can suggest that even one of the reasons it deserves poor scores, is it's short campaign. Unless they also wish to criticize the competitions titles.

I think an 8 for MoH probably seems about right, but I also think the other two popular military FPS right now, are immensely overrated. Not that I'm actually rating it though, haven't played it yet, myself. Guess I'll see how good it is. I read the Arstechnica review and that has me interested.

lolzers3295d ago (Edited 3295d ago )

'I think an 8 for MoH probably seems about right'


'I don't have this game'

Does not compute.

EDIT:I'd like to emphasise that you don't have this game, have probably never played it and you're making a judgement on what rating should be fair for it. You haven't played it, therefore you have no valid opinion on what the score should be. When you have actually owned it, played it and maybe even completed it you can give a judgement on what score the game should get.

Show all comments (47)
The story is too old to be commented.