Review: Medal of Honor

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.