Review: Medal of Honor

Velocirapture07

New member
Jan 19, 2009
356
0
0
Interesting review. I already have COD 2 so I wasn't planning on getting this ( I don't even plan on getting black ops either), so I figured there would be very little difference. I also totally agree with you about the Taliban controversy.
 

Painful illusion

New member
Oct 9, 2010
69
0
0
I see medal of Honor as the underdog against COD. I really wanted this game to be better than Black ops..."sigh".. maybe in a few years. I can only hope they do better.
 

XandNobody

Oh for...
Aug 4, 2010
308
0
0
As Shakespeare would say, a rose by any other name... Though, in all honesty, you said it much better, a Taliban by any other [email protected]#%ing name is still a [email protected]#%ing Taliban...

More on topic though, kinda disappointed from what I've seen of this game myself, it looks to be nothing more than a blatant attempt to try and beat the CoD series by copying the CoD series. Who in their right mind thought that would work, exactly?
 

Armored Prayer

New member
Mar 10, 2009
5,319
0
0
From what I'm seeing in the video review, the game looks very bland(and I hate using that term) and the action is not all that great. (that was one ugly looking knife kill)

And the game is scripted and short? Yeah, sadly I'm skipping this one. Multiplayer sounds great though.
 

ImprovizoR

New member
Dec 6, 2009
1,952
0
0
I just loved his voice tone when he said "those fuckin' guys are Talibans" :D
Awesome review.
 

Onyx Oblivion

Borderlands Addict. Again.
Sep 9, 2008
17,032
0
0
Video no worky. For me.

Anyway, I might get this, since I'm not buying any Activision games anymore. Used or new. Looks solid enough, and comes with Frontline on PS3, iirc.
 

L-J-F

New member
Jun 22, 2008
302
0
0
Hmm, originally I was excited about it, especially after MoH Airborne which was awesome. However ... gotta agree, it seems to try and copy CoD a bit too hard, or something. It doesn't feel right.
 

Misterkillsall

New member
Jun 7, 2010
28
0
0
Is it just me, or does this feel like Bad Company 2... minus destructible enviroments? This seems like the kind of game you would buy if you couldn't afford MW2 or BC2, except that IT JUST CAME OUT so it's still sixty bucks.

No thank you good sir, I have better ways of spending my money.
 

Steve Butts

New member
Jun 1, 2010
1,003
0
0
Onyx Oblivion said:
Video no worky. For me.

Anyway, I might get this, since I'm not buying any Activision games anymore. Used or new. Looks solid enough, and comes with Frontline on PS3, iirc.
Ahhhh a fellow man with a stance, im also off Blizard products but mainly becuase im a million miles past WoW at this point and Starcraft is well... Starcraft 2. I do like RTS but Starcraft is the embodiment of everything that can be wrong with it.
 

CaptainCrunch

Imp-imation Department
Jul 21, 2008
711
0
0
Scrumpmonkey said:
"Stream not found" Daym...
Onyx Oblivion said:
Video no worky. For me.

Anyway, I might get this, since I'm not buying any Activision games anymore. Used or new. Looks solid enough, and comes with Frontline on PS3, iirc.
CTRL + F5 a few times. If it still doesn't play, restart your browser.
 

Steve Butts

New member
Jun 1, 2010
1,003
0
0
CaptainCrunch said:
Scrumpmonkey said:
"Stream not found" Daym...
Onyx Oblivion said:
Video no worky. For me.

Anyway, I might get this, since I'm not buying any Activision games anymore. Used or new. Looks solid enough, and comes with Frontline on PS3, iirc.
CTRL + F5 a few times. If it still doesn't play, restart your browser.
What do you think i've been doing for the past 10 minutes? Should i try bashing my case and shouting loudly next?
 

Matt_LRR

Unequivocal Fan Favorite
Nov 30, 2009
1,260
0
0
While I agree with the review in general, I would go so far as to point out that MoH doesn't just fail to do things better than it's competition, it generally fails to do them as well.

Playing through the game, it has so far done nothing that another contemporary shooter (be that Call of Duty, or heck, even Halo: Reach) hasn't already done better. It's not just a CoD clone, it's an inferior CoD clone. And I think that's worth note.

-m
 

CaptainCrunch

Imp-imation Department
Jul 21, 2008
711
0
0
Scrumpmonkey said:
What do you think i've been doing for the past 10 minutes? Should i try bashing my case and shouting loudly next?
Do things that refresh Flash Player's cache. It may take a full restart, or a matter of waiting until Flash decides the file exists.

Also, error codes are helpful. (You can PM these)
 

HotFezz8

New member
Nov 1, 2009
1,139
0
0
i have a strongly held opinion on the taliban issue (that EA are moeny grabbing attention seeking scum desperatly trying for a "scandal" to match MW2s airport scene and don't care how many bereaved families are hurt by it) but i respect the way it was handled in this review.

other than that it was a good review, if i buy this game it will be second hand (so no money goes to EA) but i have yet to hear a positive review about this game so far.
 

Steve Butts

New member
Jun 1, 2010
1,003
0
0
CaptainCrunch said:
Scrumpmonkey said:
What do you think i've been doing for the past 10 minutes? Should i try bashing my case and shouting loudly next?
Do things that refresh Flash Player's cache. It may take a full restart, or a matter of waiting until Flash decides the file exists.

Also, error codes are helpful. (You can PM these)
C-Cleaner should proabaly do the trick.

EDIT; Nope still nothing. Not exactly urgent though, i guess i'll try again tommorow or something.
 

Kukakkau

New member
Feb 9, 2008
1,898
0
0
I agree with the single player portion of your review but have to disagree with the multiplayer being well designed

You mentioned the long corridors for snipers - problem is these corridors normally take up only 1 of at most 3 ways to get to an area making the attackers role run into sniper fire and die repeatedly.

Due to badly designed maps, poorly thought out game modes and a lot of other issues I had, I found the multiplayer distinctly not fun and would not recommend it to anyone
 

Steve Butts

New member
Jun 1, 2010
1,003
0
0
Matt_LRR said:
While I agree with the review in general, I would go so far as to point out that MoH doesn't just fail to do things better than it's competition, it generally fails to do them as well.
My first draft was originally much heavier on the direct comparisons to COD but I just couldn't get the format right. It wound up being distracting so I challenged myself on the rewrite to minimize the references to COD.
 

Matt_LRR

Unequivocal Fan Favorite
Nov 30, 2009
1,260
0
0
Steve Butts said:
Matt_LRR said:
While I agree with the review in general, I would go so far as to point out that MoH doesn't just fail to do things better than it's competition, it generally fails to do them as well.
My first draft was originally much heavier on the direct comparisons to COD but I just couldn't get the format right. It wound up being distracting so I challenged myself on the rewrite to minimize the references to COD.
Fair 'nuff.

-m
 

SalamanderJoe

New member
Jun 28, 2010
1,378
0
0
I have it. I like the multiplayer. Campaign is acceptable but no near amazing. PS3 version of the Tier 1 mode comes with Medal of Honor Frontline in HD don't you know?

It has however just wet my appitite for Black Ops, which I'm looking forward to. Need to shoot some explosive crossbows at 'nam zombies.
 

XandNobody

Oh for...
Aug 4, 2010
308
0
0
Steve Butts said:
Matt_LRR said:
While I agree with the review in general, I would go so far as to point out that MoH doesn't just fail to do things better than it's competition, it generally fails to do them as well.
My first draft was originally much heavier on the direct comparisons to COD but I just couldn't get the format right. It wound up being distracting so I challenged myself on the rewrite to minimize the references to COD.
A hard thing to do these days, especially with this type of shooter. I thank you for the effort, really let me judge the game as it was. Even if my own conclusion was CoD clone, it was mine. ^_^
 

Dhatz

New member
Aug 18, 2009
302
0
0
it's littered with unrealism, texture overcompression, cheap shadows and wrong lighting, glitches and sometimes external models of guns missing a part of their textures or there is an extra silencer, but what really turned me off was the aiming device with 3 fire modes, the situation was so chaotical and underexplained I stopped playing it and loaded Road Of The Dead on newgrounds, not regretting at all. Hope this type of shooter dies fast, but please rush with the termination of Dead Space franchise!
 

Steve Butts

New member
Jun 1, 2010
1,003
0
0
Steve Butts said:
Matt_LRR said:
While I agree with the review in general, I would go so far as to point out that MoH doesn't just fail to do things better than it's competition, it generally fails to do them as well.
My first draft was originally much heavier on the direct comparisons to COD but I just couldn't get the format right. It wound up being distracting so I challenged myself on the rewrite to minimize the references to COD.
Well the comparisons are really unavoidable, especially when the game seems to have been designed from day day one with the idea of chashing in on the CoD cycle market. I don't really get where Medal of Honor 'fits'. Are EA really going to try and bring out a 'realistic' first-person shooter every year? How many do they think the market will suppot? I mean we already have Bad Comapny 2 which reall covers much of the same ground especially online. (Bad Company is also argumably a better game than COD, well on the PC at least.)

Personally im dissapointed in EA for taking such a "Copy EXACTLY the money printing machine now!!!" approuch to making games, they have really concided that Activision is the market leader and they should follow. Was EA really expecting to ride the black ops train all the way to moneyville? Are they planning a kind of yearly release of the same game like Call of Duty so blatantly does.

There is also the side point that "realistic first person shooter" is kind of a laughable title for these types of games, in a universe where something like ARMA II exists it's a bit of a pretencious label. Like calling grape juice a fine vintage wine. Sure it's grapes but there is so much more to it.
 

Headwuend

New member
Oct 27, 2008
69
0
0
The last "modern infanterist fps" I played was CoD:MW1. And frankly, I get the feeling that both MW2 and MoH mostly look and feel like the one that made them big. How accurate is my assumption?

Wonder where those franchises will go once the modern setting sells as badly as WW2 used to at some point. Rivaling Crysis kind of shooters? Would love to see some sort of "Call of Duty: Plausible Nifty Military Gadget Warfare of Tomorrow". :p
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,596
0
0
I'd like to get this however my incredibly hectic and expensive lifestyle has resumed vacuuming out my bank account upwards of £50 a month.

So I'm limited to roughly one new title a month... I didn't buy one last month (thank you Capcom competitions) and currently I have a copy of Fallout New Vegas and Fable 3 sitting in some dark room with my name on it waiting to be picked up.

Maybe next month... however Ultramarines does come out then... plus I do want to see Sum 41... so maybe next year.
 

XandNobody

Oh for...
Aug 4, 2010
308
0
0
Headwouend said:
The last "modern infanterist fps" I played was CoD:MW1. And frankly, I get the feeling that both MW2 and MoH mostly look and feel like the one that made them big. How accurate is my assumption?

Wonder where those franchises will go once the modern setting sells as badly as WW2 used to at some point. Rivaling Crysis kind of shooters? Would love to see some sort of "Call of Duty: Plausible Nifty Military Gadget Warfare of Tomorrow". :p
Actually, MF2 was crap, a large stack of crap and white wash. Well, unless you like hackers and griefing. I'd rather play MW1 any day of the week.
 

David Bray

New member
Jan 8, 2010
819
0
0
I heard this was shit off IGN which means it's REAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLY shit. So naw. I'll pass on it.
 

TheRightToArmBears

New member
Dec 13, 2008
8,674
0
0
Looks like CoD, but with the over-the-top fun removed.

And what with the controversy and Blops coming up, this is going to get arse-raped.
 

mezmerizer02

New member
Jun 6, 2009
160
0
0
the reviewer didn't do a very enthusiastic job explaining that this game was in most ways much more realisitic to how events are overseas for special operations, which was the mainstay point of the development of the game. It seems as though Steven was very biased. I did pick it up at launch, and i will say there are some drawbacks that took me out of complete immersion at times, but it was an overall great effort. The multiplayer isn't as good as MW's but the singleplayer is definately a winner. Remember to SLIDE!
 

TheBluesader

New member
Mar 9, 2008
1,003
0
0
I don't know if anyone has already mentioned this, but the whole name change (from Taliban to Opposing Forces) actually makes the game more realistic. My brother-in-law, an Afghan War marine vet, says that they always called the guys they were fighting "Opposing Forces" because, and this is clearly reflected in the game, the Taliban itself is only one component of the confederated groups that are all having a being-bad-guys field day in Afghanistan at the moment.

The remnants of the Taliban are fighting against us, NATO and the Afghan Army with Al-Qaeda flunkies from a dozen countries, Chechen separatists / Islamists, Iranian "military advisers," local Afghani warlords who oppose the Taliban, the new Afghani government, and any other powers attempting to reduce their local control, and a whole host of other guys of various native and non-native ethnicities and sects trying to take advantage of a disrupted situation to further personal / ideological / political goals. Some of the same groups are also fighting in Iraq where they ally themselves with local anti-government / anti-American forces.

So by changing the name, EA is actually making the game more realistic. Am I the only one who's noted this?
 

Steve Butts

New member
Jun 1, 2010
1,003
0
0
They're so indistinguishable from each other, that when one of them says "Come with me," you actually have to look around for a second to see who's talking.
Were they wearing full-face helmets? Apparently that was a major problem with another title recently.

I believe I have stumbled upon the new epidemic of our times: Game Related Hearing Loss.
 

randomsix

New member
Apr 20, 2009
773
0
0
Apparently it is as I expected: a chance for a good campaign was sidelined in order to jump on the multiplayer bandwagon.
 

Wolfinton

New member
Jan 1, 2010
147
0
0
Hmmm, this game seems to be getting average reviews at most places.

Well, at least this didn't just give it an average review because it 'copied' off CoD. You cannot copy of a game that has copied off a game that has copied off a game. Off a game. And another.

It can really annoy me when CoD can do the same thing year in, year out and get amazingly high review scores, yet when anything else does it it is bad and a downright copy and gets low reviews for it? That just isn't right.

Now on topic, like I said at the start, seems like this is getting average reviews everywhere.
 

axiom5000

New member
Oct 15, 2010
2
0
0
DrNobody18 said:
As Shakespeare would say, a rose by any other name... Though, in all honesty, you said it much better, a Taliban by any other [email protected]#%ing name is still a [email protected]#%ing Taliban...
So, according to your - and the reviewer's - logic, Russians and Germans are still the spawn of Satan in semantic disguise!?

Anyway: Not EA lacks "sensitivity"; your black-and-white moral at the end does. After all, those "[email protected]#%ing Taliban" used to be the good guys back in the 80s; mercenaries, paid by the US.
 

Neofishie

New member
Sep 23, 2010
78
0
0
TheBluesader said:
I don't know if anyone has already mentioned this, but the whole name change (from Taliban to Opposing Forces) actually makes the game more realistic. My brother-in-law, an Afghan War marine vet, says that they always called the guys they were fighting "Opposing Forces" because, and this is clearly reflected in the game, the Taliban itself is only one component of the confederated groups that are all having a being-bad-guys field day in Afghanistan at the moment.

The remnants of the Taliban are fighting against us, NATO and the Afghan Army with Al-Qaeda flunkies from a dozen countries, Chechen separatists / Islamists, Iranian "military advisers," local Afghani warlords who oppose the Taliban, the new Afghani government, and any other powers attempting to reduce their local control, and a whole host of other guys of various native and non-native ethnicities and sects trying to take advantage of a disrupted situation to further personal / ideological / political goals. Some of the same groups are also fighting in Iraq where they ally themselves with local anti-government / anti-American forces.

So by changing the name, EA is actually making the game more realistic. Am I the only one who's noted this?
Yeah, I noticed it, but I've got military connections too (friends and relatives), so I don't think it's something the general public knows. I think for a lot of people, the words Al Qaeda, Taliban and terrorist are interchangeable. All of which probably would've caused equal amounts of controversy.
 

XandNobody

Oh for...
Aug 4, 2010
308
0
0
axiom5000 said:
DrNobody18 said:
As Shakespeare would say, a rose by any other name... Though, in all honesty, you said it much better, a Taliban by any other [email protected]#%ing name is still a [email protected]#%ing Taliban...
So, according to your - and the reviewer's - logic, Russians and Germans are still the spawn of Satan in semantic disguise!?

Anyway: Not EA lacks "sensitivity"; your black-and-white moral at the end does. After all, those "[email protected]#%ing Taliban" used to be the good guys back in the 80s; mercenaries, paid by the US.
Way to circumvent the point, but okay. Would it make you feel better if Germans where the 'black and grey' guys? Russians the 'red guys'? The point trying to me made is calling them the 'opposing force' is bulls#!t, plain and simple, we damn know full well who they are, call them that.
 

Echo136

New member
Feb 22, 2010
1,004
0
0
I thought the beta was absolute crap. I figured the game wasnt worth my money. From the overall scores its been getting it looks like I wasnt wrong.
 

CD-R

New member
Mar 1, 2009
1,355
0
0
I'll say it again. They should have kept destruction 2.0 in for the multiplayer. It would have been interesting to see the mechanic used for those large structures. Without it there doesn't seem like there's much reason to use the c4 and rocket launchers.
 

Tsaba

reconnoiter
Oct 6, 2009
1,435
0
0
Painful illusion said:
I see medal of Honor as the underdog against COD. I really wanted this game to be better than Black ops..."sigh".. maybe in a few years. I can only hope they do better.
Personally I see MOH as a back drop to EA's shooter flag ship Battlefield 3 that will come out soon as well as testing the waters on the sensitivity of today's conflicts, from a military stand point I don't understand the problem, it's a fricken game and why aafes banned the game when it was supported by the DA (Department of the Army), but, I really don't understand the civilian stand point (no offense). As far as games go I was supremely disappointed with COD MW2, I still find COD4 and COD2 the best of the series, unless black ops is a walk on water moment, the series is tarnished in my eyes, and I look forward immensely to Battle field 3 and have high hopes for the game, I do hope MOH learns from this and develops a much better story line, goes crazy with the multi-player and tells Aafes to go F%$# itself since the game stop with the MOST RESERVED GAMES WAS ON A MILITARY INSTALLATION BEFORE THEY BANNED THE GAME FROM BEING SOLD ON BASE with somewhere around the hundreds games reserved (being conservative with numbers). I sort of feel that there was so much more to be had here, but, that it was held back, and this is why I feel that BF3 is gonna be insane. These are my observations, feel free to flame all you want.
 

whaleswiththumbs

New member
Feb 13, 2009
1,462
0
0
DrNobody18 said:
As Shakespeare would say, a rose by any other name... Though, in all honesty, you said it much better, a Taliban by any other [email protected]#%ing name is still a [email protected]#%ing Taliban...

More on topic though, kinda disappointed from what I've seen of this game myself, it looks to be nothing more than a blatant attempt to try and beat the CoD series by copying the CoD series. Who in their right mind thought that would work, exactly?
To be honest and for the sake of context, CoD did borrow heavily from MoH originally. Justputting that out there.

OT:
I like the darker tones(visualy) that are in this video. I have BFBC2 and my brother has MW2, so i can appriciate a game that doesnt wash out the camera. Although that speaking strictly from THIS video of this game.

Whats with those boxes? look in the part where Steve is dicussing the Taliban, the camera runs over to them. Those are EVERYWHERE in all shooters. Are they actually used by militaries, are they modern day crates, or something? Someone please fill me in

Side note, I'm not fixing any of those typos above, I'm very tired.
 
May 25, 2010
610
0
0
Scrumpmonkey said:
Onyx Oblivion said:
Video no worky. For me.

Anyway, I might get this, since I'm not buying any Activision games anymore. Used or new. Looks solid enough, and comes with Frontline on PS3, iirc.
Ahhhh a fellow man with a stance, im also off Blizard products but mainly becuase im a million miles past WoW at this point and Starcraft is well... Starcraft 2. I do like RTS but Starcraft is the embodiment of everything that can be wrong with it.
Care to elaborate as to why Starcraft is the embodiment of everything that can be wrong with it?
 

Weaver

Overcaffeinated
Apr 28, 2008
8,977
0
0
I just think it's funny. All these big ass companies are scrambling to the top of the "realistic FPS" hill to try to push each other off. Duke Nukem Forever is going to come along and just waltz up to the top of the "UNrealistic FPS" hill and make an ocean liner full of money.
 

Painful illusion

New member
Oct 9, 2010
69
0
0
Tsaba said:
Painful illusion said:
I see medal of Honor as the underdog against COD. I really wanted this game to be better than Black ops..."sigh".. maybe in a few years. I can only hope they do better.
Personally I see MOH as a back drop to EA's shooter flag ship Battlefield 3 that will come out soon as well as testing the waters on the sensitivity of today's conflicts, from a military stand point I don't understand the problem, it's a fricken game and why aafes banned the game when it was supported by the DA (Department of the Army), but, I really don't understand the civilian stand point (no offense). As far as games go I was supremely disappointed with COD MW2, I still find COD4 and COD2 the best of the series, unless black ops is a walk on water moment, the series is tarnished in my eyes, and I look forward immensely to Battle field 3 and have high hopes for the game, I do hope MOH learns from this and develops a much better story line, goes crazy with the multi-player and tells Aafes to go F%$# itself since the game stop with the MOST RESERVED GAMES WAS ON A MILITARY INSTALLATION BEFORE THEY BANNED THE GAME FROM BEING SOLD ON BASE with somewhere around the hundreds games reserved (being conservative with numbers). I sort of feel that there was so much more to be had here, but, that it was held back, and this is why I feel that BF3 is gonna be insane. These are my observations, feel free to flame all you want.
I really have to agree with you on all your points. MW2 was a real let down for the most part and didn't really deliver how COD had (even though it probably was hard to). I am looking forward to BF3 though, I'm sure Dice and EA will make the game how you said it..INSANE.
 

Tdc2182

New member
May 21, 2009
3,623
0
0
This is one of the few escapists reviews I just completely disagree with.

The single player in this game is phenomenal, one of the best FPS single players stories I have seen in the past few years. It does what Call of Duty doesn't, and just surpasses that last step. Yes, the characters are bland and sometimes unoriginal, but it makes you care about them. In one part of the game, it has you holding out on an Alamo-esque area being ambushed by the Taliban. You really don't see any way out of it, and you honestly start to get worried. It reminds me of CoD4's "OMG" moments, just expanded.

The multiplayer on the other hand, is where I believe the game starts to dwindle down. Its nothing new, and just seems very bland run-of-the-mill while not taking very many risks. It really has to much of a BC2 feel to it, which really turned me off of it.

chewbacca1010 said:
Another three-hour shooter set in the modern day.

*yawn*
"Because I only play games that are colorful and shiny an artistic because I am an artistic gamer and if it doesn't have any art in it then it is a bland game"

That's you.
 

mrx19869

New member
Jun 17, 2009
502
0
0
better than that Hollywood arcade style easy ass COD.. I like it, and one two shots kill.. instead of emptying a whole clip into a bad guy online and he turns around and kills you..
 

duchaked

New member
Dec 25, 2008
4,451
0
0
disappointing sounding already
was hoping it'd kick CoD's butt but hey
rental #1 now, and #2 coming November
 

Corpse XxX

New member
Jan 19, 2009
1,635
0
0
COD and MOH, how can one be worse from the other..? They look exactly the same!

Gritty, generic and repetetive FPS..
 

hobo_welf

New member
Aug 15, 2008
200
0
0
That was the most concise, well thought out, and educated review I've seen on this website yet. Hopefully you can replace the other reviewers on this site. I haven't seen a review that good in a while. Great job Steve.
 

Alandoril

New member
Jul 19, 2010
532
0
0
It's actually not a bad game, the campaign may be short but it's quite intense. Although I don't intend to touch the multiplayer I would prefer that EA stuck to their guns with the use of the word Taliban. But apparently it's ok to show you killing someone else's father, husband, brother, son but not ok to see relatives from our side die.
 

zombiesinc

One day, we'll wake the zombies
Mar 29, 2010
2,508
0
0
That last line was pure awesome.

I really enjoy the way this game plays online, actually, it's the main reason I bought it. Seeing as DICE worked on it, I had to.

I think what I enjoy most is switching between Medal of Honor/Bad Company 2 and Modern Warfare 2... they play very differently online, but not in a way like Reach, where I'd just get frustrated and quit. Between this and Black Ops, I'm good for FPS games this holiday. :3
 

tzimize

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,391
0
0
DrNobody18 said:
As Shakespeare would say, a rose by any other name... Though, in all honesty, you said it much better, a Taliban by any other [email protected]#%ing name is still a [email protected]#%ing Taliban...

More on topic though, kinda disappointed from what I've seen of this game myself, it looks to be nothing more than a blatant attempt to try and beat the CoD series by copying the CoD series. Who in their right mind thought that would work, exactly?
Yeah...I dont really understand why they do this. I mean...I sometimes wonder if I would be a fantastic company leader in the gaming world. When a game is "the best of its category" like CoD is, it dominates it. There is not always such a game, but sometimes. WoW is another. When trying to earn money it seems feeble to try to copy the BEST. When you know you probably wont beat that game anyway. Why would people settle for second best?

It would be much smarter to either 1: make your own complete niche. Like AoE did in comparison with for example warcraft or C&C or 2: make something completely original. Like Bioshock did in the shooter category. Bioshock feels a lot like a missed opportunity to me, but its still an awesome game. And its helped a long a LOT by the fact that its simply so different. WHY are gaming companies not seeing this?

Its easier to be number one if you invent your own little silly arena than if you try to run faster than Usain Bolt :|
 

Siberian Relic

New member
Jan 15, 2010
190
0
0
Interesting review. I'd rate it the same, but have a much different outlook on the single player campaign vs. multiplayer. The former I enjoyed, apart from misfires with the scripted events and an overall disjointed arc. It has great atmosphere and pacing, and I like how all the different perspectives coincide. The multiplayer, however, I found to be an exercise in serenity I simply can't pass. I won't rant about it here; suffice it to say this is the first game who's MP has frustrated me to the point of turning it off and walking away.
 

Danish rage

New member
Sep 26, 2010
373
0
0
Multiplayer i nice.
Singelplayer has it´s moments, but is ugly.

Multiplayer should have been a DLC for BF2 imo though.
 

JourneyThroughHell

New member
Sep 21, 2009
5,010
0
0
Scrumpmonkey said:
I mean we already have Bad Comapny 2 which reall covers much of the same ground especially online. (Bad Company is also argumably a better game than COD, well on the PC at least.)
Very arguable. The multiplayer was awesome (and still is) but I, personally, found the SP unacceptably terrible.

OT: Glad to see you being the one to review the game, Steve. I find your review are gearing up to be pretty much the best ones on the site, and this was really good.

It was, however, something I totally and completely disagree with.

The game is pinned as derivative and you could pretty much agree with that - helicopter shooting, icy places and desert places. And the story is probably as bland as you expect it to be. But, as a hardcore Call Of Duty fan, I've already heard (and seen) two things that pretty much warrant a purchase for me:

1) It feels really different gameplay-wise. It probably isn't, but I did see one thing - the impact of the bullet here is far more noticeable and powerful than both in MW2 and in BC2.

2) You said it was heavily scripted as if it were bad. To me, it's anything but bad.

Many people love heavily-scripted games. If it weren't for the scripts, set-pieces, the rollercoaster - I would've been severy unimpressed with MW2.

Now, I don't know whether those are good scripts - BC2 tried them, too, and that made me hate their SP even more. But there is always place for a warfare game that relies heavily on situations, not on the core mechanics.

3) They say "fuck" a lot. Hehehehe. No, bad Journey, bad.

So, I do value your opinion, but this kind of looks like a "buy" to me.
whaleswiththumbs said:
To be honest and for the sake of context, CoD did borrow heavily from MoH originally. Justputting that out there.
Have to point out they had the right. Infinity Ward was made out of a large portion of 2015, Inc. employees.
 

wooty

Vi Britannia
Aug 1, 2009
4,252
0
0
I dont know what to say about this game, it looks very........bland, and for a modern fps thats quite an achievement.

I guess the only legacy to gaming that MoH will have is the infamous "moan moan moan Taliban" saga, which feels dead already.
 

Distorted Stu

New member
Sep 22, 2009
4,229
0
0
I was hoping this to be the rebirth of the modern shooter. Sigh.. "Hands money to Call of duty".

MoH may not be the best this gen, but it sure as hell kicked thew fuck outta COD in the PS2 days.
 

Chewster

It's yer man Chewy here!
Apr 24, 2008
1,052
0
0
Tdc2182 said:
chewbacca1010 said:
Another three-hour shooter set in the modern day.

*yawn*
"Because I only play games that are colorful and shiny an artistic because I am an artistic gamer and if it doesn't have any art in it then it is a bland game"

That's you.
How delightfully ignorant of you. I decide I don't like a game based on the incredibly short length of its single player and you conclude that I am a typical artsy hipster type gamer. That is one magical jump in logic there, champ.

Funnily enough, I also didn't like Modern Warfare 2 because of the single player length, while very much liking the first, so it looks like your foolish little assessment is a touch off the mark.

Thanks for playing though.
 

Steve Butts

New member
Jun 1, 2010
1,003
0
0
JourneyThroughHell said:
2) You said it was heavily scripted as if it were bad. To me, it's anything but bad.

Many people love heavily-scripted games. If it weren't for the scripts, set-pieces, the rollercoaster - I would've been severy unimpressed with MW2.

Now, I don't know whether those are good scripts - BC2 tried them, too, and that made me hate their SP even more. But there is always place for a warfare game that relies heavily on situations, not on the core mechanics.
I don't disagree with you, but this is very much in the eye of the beholder. Scripting does allow for more dramatic narrative moments than a purely dynamic game, but my problem in MOH is that the scripts are just too obvious and predictable. You kind of feel like the game is happening to you rather than the other way around. In other words, the mission is just going to do what the designer wants it to do, regardless of your specific actions.
 

JourneyThroughHell

New member
Sep 21, 2009
5,010
0
0
Steve Butts said:
JourneyThroughHell said:
2) You said it was heavily scripted as if it were bad. To me, it's anything but bad.

Many people love heavily-scripted games. If it weren't for the scripts, set-pieces, the rollercoaster - I would've been severy unimpressed with MW2.

Now, I don't know whether those are good scripts - BC2 tried them, too, and that made me hate their SP even more. But there is always place for a warfare game that relies heavily on situations, not on the core mechanics.
I don't disagree with you, but this is very much in the eye of the beholder. Scripting does allow for more dramatic narrative moments than a purely dynamic game, but my problem in MOH is that the scripts are just too obvious and predictable. You kind of feel like the game is happening to you rather than the other way around. In other words, the mission is just going to do what the designer wants it to do, regardless of your specific actions.
Granted, but it does that in most games, whether they are heavily scripted or not.

Obvious and predictable - aye, those are problems. But the missions are pretty much always going the way the designer wants them to, in pretty much every shooter I can think of.

I've always found the open, obvious scripts better than the pretention of freedom, ala Bad Company 2 (which is, despite all I have said, a good game) - here's a chopper, you don't have to fly it but you'd better, cause this is a heli sequence.

Now, I love Modern Warfare 2 more than every grown, sane, Russian (!) man should. And there, the mission pretty much always goes the same way. Can't fault it for that.

I can however fault games that don't have that - i.e. Crysis, a very sandbox game that I found inferior to CoD 4 in every way, because it didn't know what to do with it's freedom.

Other reasons:

1) A game with scripts always has a point. There are no driving sections that are just there to transport you from one place to another - if there is driving, something is happening.

2) The story and gameplay merging is always seemless - see Modern Warfare 2. There's no jarring disconnet between the story and the shooting, and that's good.

Okay, I'm not being entirely fair, Steve, since all of this is just my assumptions that MoH might be like that based on my perception of MW2 while you have actually played the game. It's just that, as stupid as that sounds, I really like scripts.
 

Sigmund Av Volsung

Hella noided
Dec 11, 2009
2,999
0
0
Well, I believe that Medal of Honor has potential, whereas call of duty is something we've all seen 2 times now, so I can take an accurate guess of whats going to happen.

It's just sad that EA received so much bad feedback(due to the taliban) , but its weird how MW2, Black Ops and indeed COD 4 didn't. Maybe they're bribing all the newspapers, Michael Atkinson and all censorship attorneys.

As for the review, well, interesting, to say the least.
 

fanklok

Legendary Table User
Jul 17, 2009
2,355
0
0
I think we're all missing the important question here. What the hell happened to the Gaming Stash?
 

dragonburner

New member
Feb 21, 2009
475
0
0
Painful illusion said:
I see medal of Honor as the underdog against COD. I really wanted this game to be better than Black ops..."sigh".. maybe in a few years. I can only hope they do better.
All the trailers and interviews really really made me want this game to be amazing. I hope it might be worth buying used in 6 months, but I don't know. Hopefully Danger Close gets a sequel.
 

Steve Butts

New member
Jun 1, 2010
1,003
0
0
Nice review - you actually talked about the game and it's mechanics which is pretty much unheard of nowadays in a review. Usually it's just "OMFG ITS SOOO GOOD, LIKE WOOOW!".
My only complaint is that there is a major difference in multiplayer - it's balanced. CoDMW2 is hideously unbalanced with awful map design. That is a major difference.
 

Siberian Relic

New member
Jan 15, 2010
190
0
0
Also: is it just me, or do any of the platforms offer the level of visual quality shown in footage like the Limited Edition trailer, or the video of the HUD-less Apache gunfighter level? Unless there's an aspect I've missed, EA promoted a gorgeous-looking game and sold us a decent-looking one.
 

Mikeyfell

New member
Aug 24, 2010
2,784
0
0
you forgot to mention that the game comes in a box and that you use a controller

how about some emotion?
 

Netrigan

New member
Sep 29, 2010
1,924
0
0
Wolfinton said:
Hmmm, this game seems to be getting average reviews at most places.

Well, at least this didn't just give it an average review because it 'copied' off CoD. You cannot copy of a game that has copied off a game that has copied off a game. Off a game. And another.

It can really annoy me when CoD can do the same thing year in, year out and get amazingly high review scores, yet when anything else does it it is bad and a downright copy and gets low reviews for it? That just isn't right.

Now on topic, like I said at the start, seems like this is getting average reviews everywhere.
Depends if it's a bad copy or not :)

Not counting MW2 (which I haven't played yet), I found Infinity Ward's offerings to be better than Treyarch's. Infinity Ward seems to know how to put you in a set-piece with minimal exposition and make it work by giving you clear objectives in game, while Treyarch seems to make the mistake of trying to make you give a shit about the characters (how I hated those unskippable cut-scenes in CoD 3... I don't care about the French woman's boyfriend, I want to shoot shit). Watching some of the clips from Black Ops and I've already made the decision to wait until the price drops.

Reading through some of the Medal Of Honor reviews, it sounds like they're obviously aping Modern Warfare, but are really inconsistent with connecting you with the set pieces. When it works, it's awesome, but quite often you're wandering around looking for the magic spot that triggers the next event. In other words, a bad copy of what made Call Of Duty 4 such a beloved game.
 

Steve Butts

New member
Jun 1, 2010
1,003
0
0
So, if the Taliban is now called Opposing Forces, are the Americans called Oppressors or Occupiers?
 

vrbtny

New member
Sep 16, 2009
1,959
0
0
Misterkillsall said:
Is it just me, or does this feel like Bad Company 2?
Yeah. The guns have the beefed up noise which Bad Company 2 have, which COD doesn't. Remember MOH was partly done by DICE. Also the graphics had quite a lot of similarity to Bad company 2. I think it has something to do with most of MOH being run on DICE stuff. Stuff which was used to run Bad Company 2.

It's just Bad Company 2 didn't have all the really annoying scripted sequences which MOH has.
 

PeePantz

New member
Sep 23, 2010
1,100
0
0
Jester00 said:
looks like bad company 2. i'll buy it.
No, no, no, no, no. It's nothing like BC2. Seriously, I figured that this might be more like BC2 but with a serious twist, but no, not even close. I'm shocked that even with DICE working on it, it is so dumbed down. It's a much worse MW2 and not worth the money. Please heed my words and don't buy.
 

Towels

New member
Feb 21, 2010
245
0
0
Although the rest of the review was nice, consice and informative, I'm calling BS on the fact that EA changed the Taliban's label at the last minute just for profit reasons.

If they truely wanted to cater to the partisan-fueled boycotting, they would've made the changes a while before they actually did, and they would've made much more extensive changes than just a simple label change. Don't you think EA would've made more changes to cater to loud-mouthed politicians?

Seriously, the reviewer even said "They're FUCKING Taliban" but still called EA sellouts. Whatever.

Otherwise, I look forward to playing this game. CoD has all the same flaws that the reviewer mentioned and I liked its Single Player.
 

Painful illusion

New member
Oct 9, 2010
69
0
0
dragonburner said:
Painful illusion said:
I see medal of Honor as the underdog against COD. I really wanted this game to be better than Black ops..."sigh".. maybe in a few years. I can only hope they do better.
All the trailers and interviews really really made me want this game to be amazing. I hope it might be worth buying used in 6 months, but I don't know. Hopefully Danger Close gets a sequel.
Yes, I wish the same also.
 

Xyphon

New member
Jun 17, 2009
1,613
0
0
Misterkillsall said:
Is it just me, or does this feel like Bad Company 2... minus destructible enviroments? This seems like the kind of game you would buy if you couldn't afford MW2 or BC2, except that IT JUST CAME OUT so it's still sixty bucks.

No thank you good sir, I have better ways of spending my money.
Well, it IS made by Dice After all...
 

RUINER ACTUAL

New member
Oct 29, 2009
1,835
0
0
I really enjoyed the game. Not really sure what was "heavily scripted" in campaign. CoD is heavily scripted, and Black Ops looks like you're an actor in a movie. If they stick with this style for the next one, it will be much better. Multiplayer needs work though. Snipers are set up so they literally offer no disadvantage. The "battle rifles" take 2 body shots for a kill, so people just spam them. Plus they can hide behind rocks and show 2 pixels of a shoulder and kill you. Also, they can be used in CQC quite effectivly, sadly. The other classes and weapons seem balanced though. So once these issues are fixed, and hopefully more guns, maps, and a higher level cap, the MP will be more fun. I'm not going back to CoD.
 

Mromson

New member
Jun 24, 2007
125
0
0
Why are all the reviewers so nice with this game? Had this not been a shooter, everyone would have raped it a new one.
 

PhiMed

New member
Nov 26, 2008
1,483
0
0
mezmerizer02 said:
the reviewer didn't do a very enthusiastic job explaining that this game was in most ways much more realisitic to how events are overseas for special operations, which was the mainstay point of the development of the game. It seems as though Steven was very biased. I did pick it up at launch, and i will say there are some drawbacks that took me out of complete immersion at times, but it was an overall great effort. The multiplayer isn't as good as MW's but the singleplayer is definately a winner. Remember to SLIDE!
It's not a critic's job to enthusiastically point out a game's selling point. That's a marketer's job. The fact that he didn't do this shows his lack of bias.

If the single player really only lasts 6 hours, it may be a winner for some, but it certainly won't be getting my $60. Maybe I'll wait until it inevitably drops to $30... I'll probably only have to wait for a month or so, judging from what people are saying.
 

PhiMed

New member
Nov 26, 2008
1,483
0
0
RUINER ACTUAL said:
I really enjoyed the game. Not really sure what was "heavily scripted" in campaign. CoD is heavily scripted, and Black Ops looks like you're an actor in a movie. If they stick with this style for the next one, it will be much better. Multiplayer needs work though. Snipers are set up so they literally offer no disadvantage. The "battle rifles" take 2 body shots for a kill, so people just spam them. Plus they can hide behind rocks and show 2 pixels of a shoulder and kill you. Also, they can be used in CQC quite effectivly, sadly. The other classes and weapons seem balanced though. So once these issues are fixed, and hopefully more guns, maps, and a higher level cap, the MP will be more fun. I'm not going back to CoD.
He explains what he means by heavily scripted in the written review. Same # of enemies always spawn in the same place, activated by the same triggers, and exhibit the same behavior (even down to seeking the same cover). Reading is FUNdamental.
 

RUINER ACTUAL

New member
Oct 29, 2009
1,835
0
0
PhiMed said:
RUINER ACTUAL said:
I really enjoyed the game. Not really sure what was "heavily scripted" in campaign. CoD is heavily scripted, and Black Ops looks like you're an actor in a movie. If they stick with this style for the next one, it will be much better. Multiplayer needs work though. Snipers are set up so they literally offer no disadvantage. The "battle rifles" take 2 body shots for a kill, so people just spam them. Plus they can hide behind rocks and show 2 pixels of a shoulder and kill you. Also, they can be used in CQC quite effectivly, sadly. The other classes and weapons seem balanced though. So once these issues are fixed, and hopefully more guns, maps, and a higher level cap, the MP will be more fun. I'm not going back to CoD.
He explains what he means by heavily scripted in the written review. Same # of enemies always spawn in the same place, activated by the same triggers, and exhibit the same behavior (even down to seeking the same cover). Reading is FUNdamental.
I know. I read the review. I'm not sure how this is a relavent thing to say when things in games are always heavily scripted. Look at Halo, or any CoD. Many, many scripted events.
 

DTWolfwood

Better than Vash!
Oct 20, 2009
3,716
0
0
i give the game one good thing. The guns have so much more weight to them than any other Shooters i've played. Plus the thud u get from getting hit is also fantastic! Its too bad its not worth $60

maybe ill pick it up when its $29.95 on Steam.
 

justnotcricket

Echappe, retire, sous sus PANIC!
Apr 24, 2008
1,205
0
0
Hm...killing sentries stealthily in the snow? Shooting targets from an apache? Helicopter crashes? Short play time? Modern Era? Rebellious superiors? Ass-hat even more superiors? I'll confess I haven't played MOH, but I did play MW2, and it's sounding kinda similar...just set in Afghanistan?
 

TheComedown

New member
Aug 24, 2009
1,554
0
0
Mromson said:
Why are all the reviewers so nice with this game? Had this not been a shooter, everyone would have raped it a new one.
Why? It doesn't do anything exceptionally wrong, its better balanced then Cod. The SP is just as long as the last CoD game, and the heavily scripted thing is BS, nobody complained about MW2 being heavily scripted, admittedly, some of the events in MW2 where better written, but over all there wasn't that much of a difference.
 

kingmob

New member
Jan 20, 2010
187
0
0
Sounds like everything that is wrong in the current gaming world. Not exactly bad, but decidedly forgettable, uninspired and more of the same. pass...
 

vonjibble

New member
Sep 22, 2009
34
0
0
I like most of the reviews that the Escapist does but they are mostly reviewed on consoles (Xbox 360 especialy) and not on PC I find this very odd when it comes to FPS games.
Why is this? (Does it just happen to be the version that they get sent or something?)
 

carpathic

New member
Oct 5, 2009
1,287
0
0
Never really enjoyed shooters, doubt this will change significantly with this one.
 

CtrldChaos

New member
Jul 12, 2010
3
0
0
I bought the game and i genuinely like it. Haven't finished it yet, but it is definitely worth trying out.
 

Mromson

New member
Jun 24, 2007
125
0
0
TheComedown said:
Mromson said:
Why are all the reviewers so nice with this game? Had this not been a shooter, everyone would have raped it a new one.
Why? It doesn't do anything exceptionally wrong, its better balanced then Cod. The SP is just as long as the last CoD game, and the heavily scripted thing is BS, nobody complained about MW2 being heavily scripted, admittedly, some of the events in MW2 where better written, but over all there wasn't that much of a difference.
I didn't like MW2 either, but that's beyond the point. This is a complete clone of FPSes that have come before it. You shouldn't even get a mediocre score for simply copying some shit others have already done, which is pretty much what MoH did. The SP is shit and done way better by other FPS developers, while the MP is also shit compared to other FPSes, not to mention BFBC2. Beyond the small praise over "the MP is a little bit more balanced", I see nothing worth even looking twice at - it's a tackles game that should have been ripped to shreds by reviewers.
 

TheComedown

New member
Aug 24, 2009
1,554
0
0
Mromson said:
You shouldn't even get a mediocre score for simply copying some shit others have already done, which is pretty much what MoH did.
It's also what most of the other big name FPSs have been doing for years, I don't see your point. All the other big name FPSs simply copy the same shit over and over making usually only small tweaks between versions. And so because this game follows the formula that most of the others do, it has to be labeled as shit? For following a formula thats worked for years?
 

Mromson

New member
Jun 24, 2007
125
0
0
TheComedown said:
Mromson said:
You shouldn't even get a mediocre score for simply copying some shit others have already done, which is pretty much what MoH did.
It's also what most of the other big name FPSs have been doing for years, I don't see your point. All the other big name FPSs simply copy the same shit over and over making usually only small tweaks between versions. And so because this game follows the formula that most of the others do, it has to be labeled as shit? For following a formula thats worked for years?
What other reviews said about the same amount of innovation in the past is insignificant, not that this game has any. Do you think reviewers should ignore the fact that this game is stale on pretty much every level just because they've done the same to other games in the past?
 

TheComedown

New member
Aug 24, 2009
1,554
0
0
Mromson said:
TheComedown said:
Mromson said:
You shouldn't even get a mediocre score for simply copying some shit others have already done, which is pretty much what MoH did.
It's also what most of the other big name FPSs have been doing for years, I don't see your point. All the other big name FPSs simply copy the same shit over and over making usually only small tweaks between versions. And so because this game follows the formula that most of the others do, it has to be labeled as shit? For following a formula thats worked for years?
What other reviews said about the same amount of innovation in the past is insignificant, not that this game has any. Do you think reviewers should ignore the fact that this game is stale on pretty much every level just because they've done the same to other games in the past?
How so? Why should their standards change for this one game? Yeah I found the SP to be a little "meh" and samey, but I am thoroughly enjoying the MP, much more then I have MW2. They followed the formula, put their twist on it, and some people liked it, whats the big deal? It's like your hurt or something because the game didn't get slammed in reviews, there was no real reason for it to get slammed. Objectively its a good game, its just nothing ground breaking.
 

just ban me

New member
Sep 19, 2010
25
0
0
another multiplayer game with a single player compaign tacked onto it, yawn.Just keep it what it's made for, multiplayer
 

SextusMaximus

Nightingale Assassin
May 20, 2009
3,508
0
0
Chronamut said:
Steve Butts said:
Review: Medal of Honor

The [email protected]#%ing Taliban just shot me. [email protected]#%!

Read Full Article
Cool review but the narrator for the video didn't sound very emotional and it sounded like he didn't even play video games and just read off a script...
It's a review. The point isn't to display emotion but to clearly and claritably give you his opinion on the game.
 

Mromson

New member
Jun 24, 2007
125
0
0
TheComedown said:
Mromson said:
TheComedown said:
Mromson said:
You shouldn't even get a mediocre score for simply copying some shit others have already done, which is pretty much what MoH did.
It's also what most of the other big name FPSs have been doing for years, I don't see your point. All the other big name FPSs simply copy the same shit over and over making usually only small tweaks between versions. And so because this game follows the formula that most of the others do, it has to be labeled as shit? For following a formula thats worked for years?
What other reviews said about the same amount of innovation in the past is insignificant, not that this game has any. Do you think reviewers should ignore the fact that this game is stale on pretty much every level just because they've done the same to other games in the past?
How so? Why should their standards change for this one game? Yeah I found the SP to be a little "meh" and samey, but I am thoroughly enjoying the MP, much more then I have MW2. They followed the formula, put their twist on it, and some people liked it, whats the big deal? It's like your hurt or something because the game didn't get slammed in reviews, there was no real reason for it to get slammed. Objectively its a good game, its just nothing ground breaking.
Why should their standards change to one game? Who said about one game? They should start somewhere, MoH is a great point to start since they've failed with doing so thus far. You might subjectively think that the MP part is "fun", but it is still -as you said- nothing new or innovative. It's merely a stripped down part mode of what has come before it.

At least BC2 had destructible walls and vehicles, what does MoH have? Nothing, it doesn't stand out in any way.

And why do I care you ask? Because I enjoy playing First Person Shooters, and it bothers me when utterly shit releases such as this one gets a pass when it does absolutely squat shit when compared to any of the other releases on the market.


Some people seem fine with shit, though.
 

TheComedown

New member
Aug 24, 2009
1,554
0
0
Mromson said:
Why should their standards change to one game? Who said about one game? They should start somewhere, MoH is a great point to start since they've failed with doing so thus far. You might subjectively think that the MP part is "fun", but it is still -as you said- nothing new or innovative. It's merely a stripped down part mode of what has come before it.

At least BC2 had destructible walls and vehicles, what does MoH have? Nothing, it doesn't stand out in any way.

And why do I care you ask? Because I enjoy playing First Person Shooters, and it bothers me when utterly shit releases such as this one gets a pass when it does absolutely squat shit when compared to any of the other releases on the market.

Some people seem fine with shit, though.
I never said nor believe the the MP is stripped down. It's a different twist on the same formula, its still ahead of MW2. I only said it was nothing ground breaking, it is still something new compared to the current two big dogs, and to say its a stripped down version of previous shooters is wrong, it still does a lot right that MW2 got wrong.

Never played BC2 or really any of the BF games, played a bit of 1942, and BF2, but could never get into them, spending so long just to find where the action is to get shot down as soon as you get there, doesn't appeal to me. So for those that didn't like/haven't played BC2, there is a lot of new stuff there, I should also say that I don't see vehicles as a selling point, I don't like them in my shooters, so again, for me its another point for MoH above BF.

Again, objectively its a good game, nothing ground breaking but its not a step backwards, hence the good/average ratings it gets. If it where OBJECTIVELY a bad game the scores would be a lot lower then the 76 metacritic has it sitting at.

Subjectively you don't like it, fine, but just because you don't like something doesn't make it shit to everybody, maybe just you. This may surprise you, but I enjoy playing first person shooters too. Your opinion on a game is not the be all and end all.
 

Deathkingo

New member
Aug 10, 2009
596
0
0
Perhaps it derives from my current state, but did anyone else think the reviewer seemed really bored talking about the game?
 

GrizzlerBorno

New member
Sep 2, 2010
2,295
0
0
Very good review, and having already finished this game 1 and a half times, i agree with most points. exceptions: the guns feel good, yes, but hit detection is EVEN worse than bad company which i thought was a huge blow to MOH, and secondly, i completely disagree with your point of 'predictable story'. why?

The ending where Rabbit is on the verge of death from blood loss and you keep thinking "ahhh nothin to worry about, the choppers will come and save him like MW1" then it slowly fades to black, and your like "that shit worked in the end of MW2, not this time" then it fades to the chopper with bodies down the aisle and your like "maybe he'll wake up in his bodybag and he'll be alive? maybe?"..... of course you'd be F*#&ing wrong. that scene single handedly made me respect this game BTW.
 

TheEndlessSleep

New member
Sep 1, 2010
469
0
0
When I saw the trailer for this, I genuinley thought it was a Black Ops trailer for a few seconds... nuff said
 

Steve Butts

New member
Jun 1, 2010
1,003
0
0
Actually it does a lot different from CoD. Let's see, first of all it's balanced. I'd say that's a huge difference. Secondly there is no best gun. Again, massive difference. Thirdly the kill streak system is massively different. More time spent analysing both games would be beneficial for a more in-depth, fairer review.