This review is kinda silly and snobbish. I say that because, invisible walls and barriers in FPS's are not new. S why get on top of them for that. This isn't meant to be Fallout, GTA or some other Open world game. Its a game essentially about the invasion of Afghanistan, where you play as US Navy Seals for the most part (which does a great job of making you feel like a covert Seal member). Its stunningly accurate to the actual war, and thats what its going for. I think gamespot at times are just really tedious.
"The single player campaign lasts about 6 hours..." am I the only one who thinks this is a hell of a statement to drop in passing? I didn't buy this game to play on-line, and it seemed like about 4 hours' gameplay I got out of it...I only paid $20 for it, and I did think that the graphics and audio engineering were great, and it was fun, and brilliant at teaching you as it goes along (aside from the "hold 4 to launch bomb essential to progressing in the game" section, where I had to look up the FAQ to figure out what to do; stop being lazy with PC ports, game developers). Still, if I'd paid $80 for it (which most places are still charging), I'd feel like EA owe me money. 4 hours?
this game sucks online even if you run behind cover you still die 2 seconds later when you think your safe. Snipers are not even 1 shot kill even with the extra damage bullets (forgot what its called). and apart from Kabul City ruins all the maps are badly designed and too small for the player limit. as for the movement, its not realistic....even i could strafe run faster than the characters who are supposed to be Tier 1....its actually an insult to them. I like slow fps like killzone but MOH just isnt good enough. as for the people saying it looks better than black ops.....thats because it has a much higher frame rate. try choosing a game with a similar frame rate like KZ3 or crysis 2. MOH graphics = bad. anyways ive played both games like 3 times and id still say black ops looks better. both have a lot of glitches though.
Don't know about you guys, but I really liked this game. Story, weapons, movement, player physics are way much better than COD. It gives more realistic look than COD franchise. Only minus is TOOO short SC. Hope next one will be longer, and even more dynamic and realistic.
The best war game to date..blows COD out of the water unless your under 14 than COD would be better for you then, Cant wait for the next one, Love killing talaban dogs
This game is great i love the multiplayer its so realistic if you run out from behind cover like a dumass your going to die none of that stupid CoD sprinting around and killing here.
Medal of Honor - one of the best WWII shooters of old, with great gameplay and atmosphere. So this one is called MoH but when you look at it you get a mediocre shooter/propaganda with bad physics and 6 hours campaign with the multiplayer of bad company. Thanks but no thanks. Am I the only one tyred of shooting at arabs and koreans these days.
All in all, I feel there is only one problem with this game. The single player campaign is way too short. Otherwise, apart from a few graphical hiccups, I found this to be a very underrated game!
@rgnuyda Way to be a complete ignoramus. The reviewer's job is to state his/her opinion about a game. If his opinion is not the same as yours, GET OVER IT. Quit being butthurt over the internet, making completely false accusations. This was a very informative review, and while it was not exactly too positive, I'd rather take a truthful and critical review than a positive review which does not accurately express the opinion of the reviewer. And whether or not CoD or BF:BC2's campaigns prepare you for the multiplayer is completely irrelevant, because last time I checked, this is MEDAL OF HONOR, not either of the aforementioned titles.
The guy reviewing this video doesn't know what he's talking about. "The SP doesn't prepare you for the MP." The same with CoD, BFBC2, etc. What the heck does he want? Ah, i know he just wants to have something negative to say in his review to make his boss think he's doing his job. Pathetic.
its a great game but dosent realy shine the same that call of duty 4 did when it left the ww2 series
So the guy in the beginning gets shot in the head.. and nothing happens to it. Shocking realism good job EA.
Sorry guys... Medal of Honor just wasn't fun... If you like it then great but I didn't think it was very good at all.
good multyplayer and great campign if you saw black ops as what it realy is (crapy over hyped pile of junk) and want a good multyplayer game get this game its great.
This game seems ok but its not my type. I've always been a fan of EA shooters but when I played this (at a friend's house) I was very dissapointed. I loved the WWII Medal of Honors but this is where the highly-acclaimed series loses its touch. This game was terrible, good review though
I don't see why you always have to play as multiple characters in FPS. I like I good story. The only FPS to do this was COD: Black Ops with Alex Mason who you played as through the whole game. Multiple characters means that there's no one I can connect to which makes the game less interesting.
@Albino494 FEAR, FEAR2, Half life, Half Life 2, episodes 1 and 2, SIN, the first and only SIN episode, Crysis, Crysis Warhead All of the doom series, Duke series, Farcry 1 and 2, Unreal 2. Halo series, NOLF1 and 2, Soldier of Fortune 1 and 2 (havent got 3), the Wolfenstein games, Vietcong, Serious Sam, Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Half life Opposing Force and Blue Shift, Metro 2033, Quake 4, Rage and that is just from a quick look at my steam library and bookshelf, I'm sure there are a heap i have missed. Or did you just mean games with a good story and one person's perspective? I would also call Bioshock a FPS too, even though has other elements, and my faves, Deus Ex and System Shock.