Review: Medal of Honor

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.