Medal of Honor

I'm a weirdo, and was considering getting it solely because I want to encourage big bushy beards in games. Oh well...
 
So wait, can you guys with the game confirm that you do indeed need to enter a code to play online? There's been a couple guys on the net saying it's BS and you get to play "free".
 
im confused... so is this game good or bad? I read ign (6.0), gamespy (3/5), g4tv(4/5), cheatcc (3.9/5) reviews. I'm starting to think IGN's review was a bit biased.
 
overall opinion seems to be that while the game isn't bad. it isn't as awesome as the hype and publicity made it seem. from what i've seen, the one word that seems to describe it is disappointing.
 
Yeah im kinda disappointed that the campaign is too short. 4 hours?! MW2 was at least 8. The developer only had this to focus on because DICE was doing the multiplayer, ad yet the best thing they came up with was a 4hour campaign? Disappointing it is.
 
This is out in torrents (which is a previous step for me to buy games, sort of a demo) and not even then I'm getting it. It's like BMWs and the Cool Wall... this one just refuses to get on the board for me.
 
unbreakable said:
Yeah im kinda disappointed that the campaign is too short. 4 hours?! MW2 was at least 8. The developer only had this to focus on because DICE was doing the multiplayer, ad yet the best thing they came up with was a 4hour campaign? Disappointing it is.
Click to expand...

mw2 could be done in 4 hours too.
 
The campaign is short but still very enjoyable. It is a bit too easy as I'm playing on Hard and I think I died only once till now (I played for like 3 hours already so I guess I'm pretty far along) but the graphics are truly awesome, the gameplay is the best I've encountered in a FPS campaign and the missions manage to not be a monotonous endless line of running around and shooting.

I actually liked it a lot, I'm just so bummed I know it'll end pretty soon (and too soon).

EDIT

So I just finished it and I'm in love with this game. Yes it was short but that is it's only fault. Harder missions did lay ahead (nothing too challenging tho) and as war FPSs go, this is the best one I've played. MW is pretty close but this was just epic. If you love FPSs this is a MUST.

Oh and Linkin' park's The Catalyst fit the ending far too brilliantly.

This trailer is completely out of this world as well (more fun to watch after you play the game though)
[video=youtube;TmQ-R71eqUk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmQ-R71eqUk[/video]
 
Last edited:
The campaign is really stellar. I was blown away when I looked down the scope of the M4 CQBR you have in the first level and you could see the killflash mesh. The addition of the Air Force TAC-P CAS operator who accompanied the Rangers was a nice touch as well. A very authentic game. I just wish it was longer, and had less linear missions. The graphics truly are very, very nice. The story wasn't bad. The story seems largely based on "Lone Survivor" by Marcus Luttrell, from SEAL team 10's downslope retreat (which had a much more tragic ending in real life) to the Rangers' botched mountaintop landing. Authentic military stories need to be character driven to really sell it (see Band of Brothers), and this wasn't. But there is still a good sense of progression and the task at hand is always pretty clear.

The problem is the multiplayer (which does not need a code to play on, fortunately). It feels tacked on. And the gameplay is just like a simplified BFBC2. The controls also feel very loose compared to the single player (which is COD tight). The single player gameplay would've made a much better and more unique multiplayer game. There is a distinct lack of weapon variety as well.

7/10, mostly due to the multiplayer.
 
Last edited:
so IGN's review was a bit biased i guess?
 
IGN has a thing for Activision games, they gave MW2 a 9.5 for example, the reviewer was swooning over it so much i'm surprised he didnt give it 10/10.
 
Last edited:
I just watched the IGN review and it's hard to believe how I can disagree with almost every word that useless excuse for a gamer spouted.

1. Don't play FPSs on a console you noob. I had absolutely 0 performance issues at 1920x1080 all details cranked up to max. and it looks amazing.
2. The game is actually very easy to follow and it shows you exactly where you need to go 99.9% of the time. He describes "being lost" as a problem, which it would be if you SUCK. I had none of that happen to me.
3. Every mission in this game is somewhat different. I won't give any spoilers but you get to work a pretty big variety of weapons and hardware. It didn't feel repetitive at all.

Why are these websites so obviously biased? I can only assume the companies buy out their opinions with how much wrong they are sometimes... I'd keep going and negate each word he said but it's pretty useless of me.

Play the game and decide for your self, don't listen to a bunch of bought out ass holes in a web site.
 
So How's Medal Of Honor Sold?
So Medal of Honor wasn't as great as some, myself included, were expecting. Pity. Critical apathy doesn't always translate into poor sales, though, so let's look at how the game's done at retail thus far.

According to publisher Electronic Arts, the game has sold 1.5 million copies across the US, Europe and Asia since its release last week. Those numbers would be healthy for most games, but for a title with such heavy marketing and buzz behind it - and one appearing on PC, 360 and PS3 - you can bet EA were hoping they'd be a little healthier.

Especially when you have to wonder whether sales will fall off rather quickly once word gets around that the game's not so good.
Click to expand...
original article: http://kotaku.com/5668440/so-hows-medal-of-honor-sold
 
Mercury said:
I just watched the IGN review and it's hard to believe how I can disagree with almost every word that useless excuse for a gamer spouted.

1. Don't play FPSs on a console you noob. I had absolutely 0 performance issues at 1920x1080 all details cranked up to max. and it looks amazing.
2. The game is actually very easy to follow and it shows you exactly where you need to go 99.9% of the time. He describes "being lost" as a problem, which it would be if you SUCK. I had none of that happen to me.
3. Every mission in this game is somewhat different. I won't give any spoilers but you get to work a pretty big variety of weapons and hardware. It didn't feel repetitive at all.

Why are these websites so obviously biased? I can only assume the companies buy out their opinions with how much wrong they are sometimes... I'd keep going and negate each word he said but it's pretty useless of me.

Play the game and decide for your self, don't listen to a bunch of bought out ass holes in a web site.
Click to expand...

Agreed. While I didn't enjoy itas much as I hoped, its far from the bashing it's been getting.
 
EA: Medal Of Honor "Didn't Meet Our Quality Expectations"​
For all its pre-release swagger and marketing might, EA's recent Medal of Honor reboot, well, sucked. I think so, many of you think so, and now even staffers at Electronic Arts are getting down on the game.

"I'm not going to comment on the sales because EA has an earnings report going out next week and we will unveil sales in that meeting", EA Games' Patrick Soderlund told Eurogamer. "What I can say is the game didn't meet our quality expectations. In order to be successful in that space, we're going to have to have a game that is really, really strong."

"Medal of Honor is to some extent judged harsher than it should be", he then adds in the game's defence. "The game is better than today's reviews are indicating."

No, it's not, and that's being kind, because I think Medal of Honor was a double failure. Yes, it failed as a modern-day shooter thanks to confusing jargon, a boring plot and woefully-implemented AI scripting.

But even more importantly, it failed at what it was initially pitched as being: an "authentic" military action title. What we were promised was a game that put us in the shoes of a Western soldier in Afghanistan, a conflict that's as much about dealing with civilians and "allies" as it is putting bullets in bad guys. The game even made a big deal of the apparently vital involvement of a number of serving members of the US military.

What we got was a game where you walk, run and sometimes drive down corridors shooting everything in your path. It could have been set in space and starred an alien, it could have been set in the Second World War and had you playing as a Brit, and the experience would have been transferable.

EA had a chance with Medal of Honor to really throw a stake in the ground. To show that by setting a game in a controversial, contemporary conflict that a shooter could be as much about a soldier's actual experience as it was about video game cliches of spawn points, headshot streaks and sniper levels. And it failed.
Click to expand...

original article: http://kotaku.com/5680106/ea-medal-of-honor-didnt-meet-our-quality-expectations

i've recently started playing the campaign missions in Medal of Honor (just doing the Apache missions at the moment) and i'm enjoying it. its not a great game that is setting a new standard in FPS and video games in general. however its enjoyable, i like the variety of the missions. i'm seriously enjoying the Sniper missions at the moment and i haven't felt like i've been cheated out of my money. much like as to what happened with Star Wars: The Force Unleashed 2.
Yes it could have been better, but it could have been so far more worse. At least its not as bad as Sniper: Ghost Warrior.
 
I still think they were quite dickish to slap the Medal of Honor brand to this, which has nothing to do with WW2.
 
mpicco said:
I still think they were quite dickish to slap the Medal of Honor brand to this, which has nothing to do with WW2.
Click to expand...

(if you are talking about the real Medal)

a couple Medals of Honor have been handed out during pretty much every major conflict, it isn't a solely WW2 thing.
 
completed the campaign mode of the game a few minutes ago and i've enjoyed it a lot. while its too short, the gameplay and storyline was enough to make it feel like i wasn't having my time wasted. most of all i liked the whole alternating viewpoints of the game. strangely enough i found myself enjoying the storyline for this game far more than i did the one for Call of Duty: MW2. This one just seemed a lot more authentic than the one that CoD:MW2 came up with.
The sniper stuff still remains the standout for me and i loved the little moments when using the big ass sniper rifle, timing my moments, pulling the trigger and then the wait for the bullet to strike its target. Like in my earlier post, i enjoyed this game a lot more than i enjoyed Star Wars: The Force Unleashed 2. Story and gameplay wise it was the better game. not that you can really compare a FPS game and a Star Wars game.

also the soundtrack was great, not only the Linkin Park track but the score itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top