A worthy, but failed, attempt to revitalize a genre that is clearly dying.
Story/Presentation: 7.5
As with the usual Medal of Honor (MOH) design, the story here is virtually non-existent. You play as Boyd Travers, a random Airborne tropper with a seemingly random name, zero personality, no dialog, and no inclusion in the few cutscenes. And that's fine, for the most part, as most gamers have atoned to the lack of story in their WW2 shooters. Still, with the genre dying, it would've been nice to see at least some attempt to develop a story.
MOH: Airborne makes an attempt to update the genre by placing players in the 82nd Airborne Division, meaning, at the start of each mission, you'll actually be jumping out of a plane and parachuting in. Sounds somewhat exciting and the "thrill" factor is certainly there, but overall the practice is mundane, and quickly regarded as a gimmick. Each mission is scattered with numerous and varried objectives, with new objectives and mission updates occuring frequently. The locales are also varried, from the crumbling bombed-out cities of Operation Market Garden, open countrysides approaching coastal defesnses, but each one plays nearly the same and will full repetitive very shortly. EA did a great job at using different regions and mission settings for each campaign, but the result is a very detatched setting, even for a WW2 game.
Each level, or campaign, is ridden with destroyed buldings, vehicles, and tons of fortified enemy defenses, which all serve to effectively simulate a warzone evironment, However, each environment feels entirely static as there are zero desructable elements and interactivity.
Graphics: 7.0
The game runs off of the latest build of the Unreal 3 Engine, and it shows it very well. Textures are rich with tons of detail, and just enough to keep each building, house, and trench from all looking the same. Cities really do appear to be furverantly destroyed, and that's a rarity in games these days.
However, even with the power of the U3 Engine, the game looks FAR too static. The lighting system is functional, but isn't reactive enough and gives the game a "painted" effect. While standing still, it's one gorgeous screen shot, but in motion, the feeling is reminiscent of the old PS1 games that used pre-rendered environments. Along with zero environmental activity and no destructable elements, it doesn't provide the feeling that you are actually part of the world, but more like pieces moving around the board of a board game. There's also blinding muzzleflare from weapons that is clearly overdone.
Thankfully, some great and realistic animations and explosions (if a bit last-gen looking) save the game in this category.
Sound: 9.0
EA has always had great sound design, and MOH:A is no different. While the score may be a bit toned down from WW2 shooters that try to emulate "Saving Private Ryan," it fits in perfectly.
Sound effects are spot on, and guns sounds are some of the best ever, without going overboard, or sounding like pea-shooters.
Gameplay: 7.0
The primary marketing of Airborne is that you can parachute to anywhere on the battlefield and accomplish your objectives in any order you see fit. It seemed like it might be revolutionary, but in the end, it serves as nothing but a glorified self-selecting respawn process. It's extremely detatched from the rest of the gameplay, and feels very cheap. It does, however, allow players easy access to rooftops, although other than the first mission (also the Demo mission), that becomes null and void.
The game moves at a frantic pace as enemies will somewhat continue to respawn from fortified positions until you push forward, and the enemy A.I. is extremely reactive - they move constantly from cover to cover, and won't usually be caught in the open. However, I find that they do a little too much "peeking" without firing their guns, as if to say "here's you're 2 second window to take a headshot!...my gift!" Their ability to seek you out and aim is not so hampered. In fact, it's well overdone. Doesn't matter if you're 10-ft in front of your target, or 150-ft behind him and high up on the roof getting ready to snipe at him...he ALWAYS knows you are there. Far too many times did I circle around enemies, well hidden up on the rooftops 3 stories up, and as soon as I leaned out to snipe, the A.I. immediately turns and starts firing, with pretty decent accuracy, even with an SMG at 300-ft....I suppose they have radar 2.
Your A.I. is a different story, suffice to say they only serve as decoys. They don't shoot enough, they run directly into fire, and have no personal problem in standing right in front of your sights while you're enganging the enemy.
Oh yeah, you can't move while aiming down the sights. You can lean all over the place, but you can't move one step. Yeah....pretty stupid, I know.
The weapons are a mixed bag - there's plenty available, and you get to chose your selection at the start of each mission (2 guns and a sidearm), but they're broken from the get go. EA has introduced an Upgrade system, where after kills are acquired for each weapon, an upgrade is automatically unlocked (and equipped) for that gun/grenade. This can be anything from increased ammo, faster reloading with dual magizines, scopes, and grips to reduce recoil. It's a bit out of place, especially in the middle of a WW2 fight, and it also punishes the player early as the weapons are extremely inaccurate in the early stages (getting a headshot with an SMG outside of 10-ft is HARD). There's also plenty of hit detection issues, and you'll find yourself questioning some of the results of that perfect headshot you swore you lined up. I don't know if this was done on purpose as a poor attempt at "authentication," or the game never received a proper playtest...either way, it sucks.
Multiplayer is average. The ability to lean while aiming provides for some clever hiding spots, precision firing, and ambushing, but since you cannot move while doing so, and the accuracy while firing from the hip is so poor, it can often make matches frustratingly drawn out. Combine that with the poor hit detection, and you've got a MP experience that isn't worth more than a few hours.
Performance: 8.5
After Rainbow Six: Vegas, which ran off of a modified version of the Unreal 3 Engine (dubbed "U3 Lite" by gamers), speculation on the requirements seemed steeped. However, it's clear that the U3 engine is a forced to be reckoned with. Even when the framerate drops (which it will when whever the view distance is vast), it doesn't appear to chug, thanks in part to a stale lighting system, and plenty of motion blurr effects. It actually works out nicely. It's even optimized for Dual & Quad Core processors, and widescreen is officially supported (which is rare for an EA PC game).
The bad news? No SLI/Crossfire support, and the driver support is touchy. I ran it on a T7600 2.33 Ghz Core 2 Duo, 2 GB RAM, Dual nVidia GeForce Go 7950 GTX cards and Windows XP, and I was shocked that there was zero SLI support, which is just downright criminal in 2007 (forcing it in the conrtrol panel actually makes performance worse). It's important that gamers update their drivers, or at least update the file Profiles (if you're an nVidia user, try the newest "BioShock drivers"), as that will at least provide full optimization for the supported settings.
Overall: 7.5
I can't recommend spending $50-$60 on this game - It's too short, the multiplayer isn't very rewarding.....and it's just not that good. It's not BAD at all...just a prime example of mediocrity. WW2 shooters need to die. That's how a majority of gamers feel, so if you're going to attempt to challange that idea, you've got to bring your A-game, and EA may have gotten an A- for effort, they get a C+ for performance. If you're looking for a fresh WW2 fix, then go ahead and give it a rental on the 360 (which has more players on Live anyways), or just go back to playing Brothers In Arms or Call of Duty 2.