Medal of Honor isn't bad at all, but it simply doesn't do anything that hasn't been done better, except for create a realistic and immersive war situation Realistic and immersive war situations, however, don't make for great gameplay.
Wow.. that bad?
Ya dude, this game sucks.
It's the site.
At the risk of MANY disagrees, MoH is an awesome game and I'm starting to doubt how much time reviewers who gave the game a low score actually spent with the Multiplayer. Having spent countless hours playing numerous quality shooters ( Battlefield: BC2, Resistance 1 & 2, the Halo Franchise, Killzone 2, years of the CoD franchise, etc...all of which offered great experiences) I am shocked that Medal of Honor is being written off so poorly. Although the campaign is admittedly not groundbreaking, the multiplayer is truly a total riot. Even the amazing BBc2 hasn't created so much cooperation on the digital battlefield when trying to reach objectives as a team. Hence... I'm calling bullshit. Either these asshat reviewers didn't spend the time needed to appreciate the multiplayer or they simply don't understand quality and shouldn't be reviewing games. Either way, I've never seen so many bad reviews in my history as a gamer. Now THAT is a rant, and I don't typically EVER rant. @Red2Tango Thank you! Like you, I'm seriously dumbfounded at the perception so many of these reviewers have of MoH. I honestly don't get it. I'm not saying it's GoTY material by any means, but a solid 85 Metacritic would be far more accurate. Hell, I'm not even some MoH fan from the past. This is the first one I have ever played. OH well.
@pogibaldy i completely agree after having a lot of fun with the sp because, it just feels better and your not the one superman of the group spreading off from the team. It just feels like a military shooter and makes it much more intense and exciting. Not to mention its very varied in a way that makes sense and is not just random. Then playing the mp and having a blast for like two hours and i came here to be very shocked that people dont like it. I just dont get it. the only thing wrong is the sp difficulty because you have to play it on hard, and the lag. But you know they will fix at least some of the lag
@Acquiescence It's not the site that sucks, it's Jim Sterling.
The game doesn't suck. They said so in the first sentence. Destructoid (Jim Sterling) just plain hates unoriginal games. Regardless of how competent it is, if it plays like ten things you've played before then it will receive a lower grade. Simple as that. Believe it or not there are many gamers who are looking for new games to try besides military fpses. Destructoid often gives time of day to those too. If this style of criticism bothers you, go read from journalists who can stomach the same games remixed year after year.
@dgroundwater "Destructoid (Jim Sterling) just plain hates unoriginal games. " I guess that's why he praised Darksiders and Singularity so much...
Destructoid is that bad
What is the deal with all the hate for Destructoid on N4G? I think they're one of the more honest and reliable gaming sites. EDIT: @Unicron - I love Jim Sterling. He's my favorite Destructoid reviewer because he's not afraid to call it like he sees it. While tons of other sites and publications were praising that piece of crap Final Fantasy 13, Jim was one of the few reviewer to accurately rate that game. I don't always agree with Jim, like when he gave Assassin's Creed 2 a 4 out of 10 (I'd have given it an 8 or a 9), but I can tell he's genuine, and I enjoy reading his witty writing.
Lack of consistency. Lack of integrity. Jim Sterling. Need I go on?
you know not what honest and reliable is dtoid - unprofessional, unreliable and simply not to be taken seriously at all its like going to The Sun magazine for in depths political analyses'
their score for ac2 was enough for me to know they dont know wtf they're talking about.
I really like the MP, even though it can be choppy, and laggy, and the server went down last night, it is more enjoyable than MW2. I didn't see any environs explode ala BFBC2 though. I like the killstreaks better and I like that there isn't always a "back way" into wherever you are fighting from. I haven't played SP yet.
Users on Amazon have given MOH a ton of bad reviews.
The sp so far is great. The sp is better than bfbc2 and much better than mw2's. I can't speak on behalf of the mp yet. But the game is def not a 6.5. Easily 8 and above.
I'm gonna guess Sterling... Yup. Figured.
I don't get the negative reviews. I have the game and it's really fun. The single player missions are intense. Modern Warfare 2's story was so here-and-there and it didn't help going from Brazil to Russia to Afghanistan to Washington. The story is intense and the realism is great and it makes you feel like you're in the battle against the Taliban and Chechnyans. The multiplayer is great. You'll spend your first couple of games having more deaths than kills, but the action is intense. This is not Modern Warfare run and gun. This is stay out of sight and move fast. No unrealistic quick sniping and other garbage you've seen from Activision products.
and it has beards.
...only complaint is the length of the single player, 4-5 hours on medium. still got to complete it on hard and tier 1 mode.
the game is a 7.0-8.0. it isnt bad. but it isnt great
"Realistic and immersive war situations, however, don't make for great gameplay." IMO That's what makes the game great
According to the Sterling curve, MoH is actually a 8.5
My review (only about an hour into SP and 3 into MP) is that it's a decent-good game It doesn't do anything terribly bad but it doesn't do anything terribly amazing either. The MP is fun for the most part though lag where you get shot around corners, feel like you put a mag into someone without them dying but you die in two bullets (which every shooter had....though I don't notice it in Halo as much) In a sentence, this would be my review. It's a fun game but it's a game I could live without just fine. Nothing groundbreaking, it's similar to other games, etc......I've got to make a decision whether the 2 weeks to a month I'll get out of it plus the BF3 beta is worth 60 dollars (even though 50 of it was credit from Amazon...I could use it on another game) especially when I have BC2 on PC not being used. I'm so torn because I rage just as much as I have fun with the game so far through 3 hours
now look how these 'mo's at detructoid gush over modern warfare 2 which was a $60 expansion with a four hour game http://www.destructoid.com/...
Without much coordination (or mic chatter) both sides can put up some EPIC MP matches. MoH is fun and a nice change of pace for those looking for one. For those wanting a more CoD experience, you'll probably be disappointed. But if you're up for a different experience, do yourself a favor and try it out.
Most of these reviews are 100% accurate except for the ones that are over 6/10.this game is getting what it deserves.i should have rented it first but now get to watch it get bid on at ebay (if it gets any bids) haha. i played for 40 mins and was overwhelmed on how much my expectations were crushed.pushing the eject button was very easy though and once mw2 was back in i was smiling.i have been playing online multiplayer games like crazy since the first ghost recon for xbox live. for all those people who think COD is overrated are nuts or just can not play it. its the most played online game.the only thing i have a gripe with is the number of hackers who have to cheat to win.
Destructoid sucks but so do modern military shooters so I can't really disagree with this one. For once, Jim Sterling is fighting the good fight, unintentionally of course.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.