Medal of Honor

 PC
User Score
6.5

Mixed or average reviews- based on 657 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 267 out of 657
  2. Mixed: 257 out of 657
  3. Negative: 133 out of 657
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. Gusta27
    Dec 22, 2022
    4
    Where to start, terrible combat system, terrible environment, with very poorly made NPCs that look more like robots than soldiers, it's a shame for so many incredible games that were produced by the Medal of Honor saga, from the second mission you lose interest in playing.
  2. kndr
    May 23, 2021
    3
    Generic and forgettable. Characters are boring, gameplay is bland and textures are bad.
  3. ruvinisimus
    Nov 2, 2017
    4
    Крайзис лучше, там было ощущения что я иду куда хочу, а тут я должен идти по "рельсам" и по контрольным точкам, это скучно/
  4. lhmtgame
    Aug 18, 2016
    4
    The game is ugly but using a lot of PC system resource and this is the worst FPS game ever!
    Using GTX960 and new 2015 components to run the game, the Frame rate always under 70FPS (1080p) with the choppy and lagging. I can get more than 70FPS with Rise of Tomb Raider.
    I've ever played MoH series before. But when I tried to know the gameplay and the content, I am so disappointed on it.
  5. ChaosHydrA
    Mar 28, 2015
    3
    One of the absolute worst FPS games i have ever played on PC. Disjointed story that switches between groups makes you never feel for the character or the one you control. Its a great example of how far the FPS genre has moved while this game seems stuck in the era the first Medal of Honor Allied Assault was released in. Todays war fps games might still have too many cliches and the sameOne of the absolute worst FPS games i have ever played on PC. Disjointed story that switches between groups makes you never feel for the character or the one you control. Its a great example of how far the FPS genre has moved while this game seems stuck in the era the first Medal of Honor Allied Assault was released in. Todays war fps games might still have too many cliches and the same gameplay mechanics but most of the best ones make up for it in other departments like gameplay variation and extremely satisfying weapon/gun play mechanics.

    Medal of Honor however doesnt bring anything to the table, from a boring amount of weapons in a abysmal short 5 hour singleplayer campaign to the same type of missions throughout where you keep assaulting forward against fodder enemies and plow them down easily to missions where youre being dictated by the friendly npcs to constantly follow evens that might aswell have been quicktime events.

    The PC version is also suffering from consolitus which means you will be having a magnifying glass FOV at "55" thats bound to cause motion sickness for most me included, its something thats only changeable by searching for a third party program for the single player campaign.

    The visuals arent too bad but the early night missions in the city & villages definitely look more outdated than some of the later missions. The only positive i can say about this game is that the audio & mic communication dialogue is pretty good between the npc's, it does a decent job at making you feel youre in a special team or warzone.

    Theres no reason to replay this game, the single player is a flat experience thats over too quick and the weapons dont have a feel of "oomph" like the better FPS games in its release day or the years around it.

    Graphics: 7.0/10
    Sound: 8.0/10
    Gameplay: 6.0/10
    Replay Value: 3.5/10

    Overall: 5.5/10    … Expand
  6. art4321
    Oct 18, 2014
    1
    one of the worst games i ever played **** this game **** EA stop ruining old and good games .
  7. Honestcritic19
    Sep 16, 2014
    4
    A chore to play through and one of the worst games I've played. The story is forgettable, the characters boring and unlikeable and the gameplay is just mediocre at best. If you want a good military shooter get one of the older cods or one of the battlefields.
  8. DrClocks
    May 29, 2014
    3
    The good: Decently set up stages, enjoyable feeling of being in the thick of our most recent wars, tribute to our fallen soldiers, fun times flying in helicopters and in night missions.
    The bad: SHORT GAME. Beat it in four hours, only 12 stages. Limited weaponry for normal "running and gunning" missions. Ye olde bad ending. Mediocre plot, basically "kill the Taliban/Al Qaeda/Chechnyans".    The good: Decently set up stages, enjoyable feeling of being in the thick of our most recent wars, tribute to our fallen soldiers, fun times flying in helicopters and in night missions.
    The bad: SHORT GAME. Beat it in four hours, only 12 stages. Limited weaponry for normal "running and gunning" missions. Ye olde bad ending. Mediocre plot, basically "kill the Taliban/Al Qaeda/Chechnyans". Glitches galore, from the ability to cause the game to lock up and prevent progress just by killing enemies too fast, to awful physics, to improper landings and movement. Beat the game basically by M4 sniping everybody in regular missions, no need for other weapons at all, never melee'd aside from a mandatory moment in the game. "Indefinite enemy respawn until you walk up to this boulder and kill this one guy" syndrome.
    The ugly: Character models, movies, and textures. I shouldn't be seeing pixellated grass every five seconds on highest settings, geez.
    The verdict: Not worth the $20 it is now. If you want it, hopefully Humble Bundle'll redo their bundle for EA. Doubt it, though.    … Expand
  9. cambria
    Jan 25, 2014
    3
    5-hour campaign (on hardest first time through). Less than 200 players online servers. Hackers top charts. Don't waste your time or money this game was apparently dead years ago. There is nothing 'realism' about this game's multiplayer mode, since anyone who's perked+ranked up can run through a clip of AK47 shots to stab you in the face. Perks systems should be destroyed, stupid AAA5-hour campaign (on hardest first time through). Less than 200 players online servers. Hackers top charts. Don't waste your time or money this game was apparently dead years ago. There is nothing 'realism' about this game's multiplayer mode, since anyone who's perked+ranked up can run through a clip of AK47 shots to stab you in the face. Perks systems should be destroyed, stupid AAA titles. Get it for $3 or less, if you are really itching for a bland campaign.… Expand
  10. bullett
    Sep 24, 2013
    4
    It's too easy, it's too short (sub 5 hours for a mediocre player like me) and it's agonisingly linear.
    There is very little story or any emotional investment in the characters as they chop and change so often. It holds your hand for most of the time and then misses out critical information (like use 4 to target the mortars in the gunfighter mission). There are invisible walls everywhere    It's too easy, it's too short (sub 5 hours for a mediocre player like me) and it's agonisingly linear.
    There is very little story or any emotional investment in the characters as they chop and change so often. It holds your hand for most of the time and then misses out critical information (like use 4 to target the mortars in the gunfighter mission). There are invisible walls everywhere and the AI on both sides is very stupid glitching on scenery and failing to trigger the next section in some cases.
    On the upside it looks very nice, the voice acting is excellent as is the sound work. I liked the few bits of variety we did get (helicopters, sniper sections) but these were very limited compared to the corridor shooter of the rest of the game.
    I've not tried multiplayer but frankly I can't really be bothered as I already have CoD and CS available as military shooters.
    If you are looking for a great shooter with a story look elsewhere. If you want a few hours mindless blasting and can pick this up cheap then give it a go.    … Expand
  11. JimGee
    Sep 21, 2013
    4
    This game is probably best described as one of those big, dumb action movies that make no sense but are so fun to watch. There's basically nothing else going for this game, though. It's literally a note-for-note copy of Call of Duty, and it's not subtle about it either. The game is also criminally short at four hours; I completed it at 3 hours after I bought and installed it.

    Oh well.    This game is probably best described as one of those big, dumb action movies that make no sense but are so fun to watch. There's basically nothing else going for this game, though. It's literally a note-for-note copy of Call of Duty, and it's not subtle about it either. The game is also criminally short at four hours; I completed it at 3 hours after I bought and installed it.

    Oh well. It was worth the five bucks. If you happen to catch it on sale, pick it up. It's not bad, it's just below average.    … Expand
  12. SolidState
    Sep 4, 2013
    2
    Disappointing. The stoy is too short and completely uninteresting. Super-easy even on the hardest setting. Not challenging at all. Really good graphics and even better sound, but its flaws kill the sense of immersion completelly. It's too linear, you're always led, directed by a squadmate who tells you exactly what to do, and don't you dare doing something different because then the gameDisappointing. The stoy is too short and completely uninteresting. Super-easy even on the hardest setting. Not challenging at all. Really good graphics and even better sound, but its flaws kill the sense of immersion completelly. It's too linear, you're always led, directed by a squadmate who tells you exactly what to do, and don't you dare doing something different because then the game goes from absurdly-easy to totally-imposible. Sometimes it feels more like watching a (very boring) film than playing a game.

    It's a real shame, because the gameplay is really good and you're put into very different situations, it's just the total lack of freedom that ruins it all.

    Could've been a 8 or 9 but for me it never got past 2.    … Expand
  13. delaiah
    Sep 2, 2013
    3
    Played only the single player campaign. If you plan on buying this game, get ready for bugs (I had to reload the game plenty of times to be able to perform some in game action needed for level progress), stupid opponents, practically no story line, immortal team members, confusing level design and confusing graphic design at times.

    Because of these, I found the game hard to enjoy. The    Played only the single player campaign. If you plan on buying this game, get ready for bugs (I had to reload the game plenty of times to be able to perform some in game action needed for level progress), stupid opponents, practically no story line, immortal team members, confusing level design and confusing graphic design at times.

    Because of these, I found the game hard to enjoy. The enemies are too easily to eliminate to feel any satisfaction, the bugs make you fight the game itself instead of the bad guys. The absence of a story line and uninspired levels got me bored too quickly too often.

    Overall, this is not a title you want to spend your on unless it's on a huge sale and you're out of FPS games at the moment.    … Expand
  14. ArthurVon
    Aug 23, 2013
    3
    I remember the old Medal of Honor games, this is a shame for the brand, this game has bugs(not to mention the DUMBEST AI I ever seen, even in Hard mode) and stupid things (your teammates carries infinite ammo and you can't, WTF The game is boring, the story is poorly written (the same story about the evil middle-east guys bla bla bla), I don't know what is good about this game...luckily iI remember the old Medal of Honor games, this is a shame for the brand, this game has bugs(not to mention the DUMBEST AI I ever seen, even in Hard mode) and stupid things (your teammates carries infinite ammo and you can't, WTF The game is boring, the story is poorly written (the same story about the evil middle-east guys bla bla bla), I don't know what is good about this game...luckily i got this with a bundle of other games for just 1 not worth a penny tho.… Expand
  15. Desmau5
    Aug 22, 2013
    3
    It's a game about realism, so it disabled the HUD.

    It still shows bodyshots and headshots when you kill an enemy, and the guns have no recoil. Enemy AI is very limited to what its scripted to do, the enemies will never change and always be predictable. The gameplay is stale, it has less character then a cardboard box. It usually limits to: You're a bad-ass, shoot people cause they    It's a game about realism, so it disabled the HUD.

    It still shows bodyshots and headshots when you kill an enemy, and the guns have no recoil.
    Enemy AI is very limited to what its scripted to do, the enemies will never change and always be predictable.

    The gameplay is stale, it has less character then a cardboard box.
    It usually limits to: You're a bad-ass, shoot people cause they aren't American.

    Multiplayer is not very fun, boring and badly designed maps, and the servers are usually dead, the EXP and leveling system is very cliche.

    Singleplayer is 2 hours of torture, you go through Afghanistan and kill people, and the guns are unrealistic and you run very slowly, enemies are not scared of being shot in the face, if you shoot a enemy in the face with the pistol, he shrugs it off like nothing happens, when you shoot his feet on accident, he screams in pain and moves back into cover.

    This is a bad game, it tried to hard to be a good game, and didn't put any effort into characters.    … Expand
  16. squarepower
    Aug 19, 2013
    0
    Avoid this trash. I only got it because it was in the Humble Bundle. Absolute waste of disk space. Terrible. Not worth playing. Rubbish. Uninstalled.
  17. joefresco
    Aug 19, 2013
    0
    Horrible multiplayer. Bad maps, bad guns, bad graphics, bad animations, bad hit registration, bad everything. Absolute junk. Bad, bad, bad, bad, 150 char.
  18. AlFredo2
    Aug 19, 2013
    0
    Terrible, terrible multiplayer. Physics are horrible. Running feels like you're trudging through molasses. Hit registration is terrible. Maps are tiny choke-point campfests with glitches everywhere.
  19. l0rdm0rd
    Aug 17, 2013
    2
    The worst single player shooter I have played in a long time. super generic, linear, boring level design with thousands of blatantly stupid AI enemies that fall like flies. I played the whole game through in hard mode and it was never a challenge. I could run to the enemy spawn and stab them to death more than once. The story is generic US american about heroes in a seal team that shootsThe worst single player shooter I have played in a long time. super generic, linear, boring level design with thousands of blatantly stupid AI enemies that fall like flies. I played the whole game through in hard mode and it was never a challenge. I could run to the enemy spawn and stab them to death more than once. The story is generic US american about heroes in a seal team that shoots everything that moves. The weapons all feel the same, none are really fun. I just used the pistol as my main gun at some point to give me some alteration and a bit of a challenge. But as you have practically unlimited ammo all the time you can also just go full auto and run around like a mental. You will still be successfull. 2 points only for nice sound and okay graphics. But for a frostbyte engine there is nearly no destructable environment.… Expand
  20. JimCorbett
    Aug 15, 2013
    4
    Bug and glitches plague this game. It's sad really, because some parts of it are very well done. The sounds and graphical effects are among the best I've seen. Just about everything else is poorly done. Squad mates are constantly getting in your way, you're given vague objectives and will often times not know what to do. Sometimes your squad mate will say "Take out that enemy right there!"Bug and glitches plague this game. It's sad really, because some parts of it are very well done. The sounds and graphical effects are among the best I've seen. Just about everything else is poorly done. Squad mates are constantly getting in your way, you're given vague objectives and will often times not know what to do. Sometimes your squad mate will say "Take out that enemy right there!" Where? "He's right there! Get him so we can move on!" Yeah, terrible AI. Enemies spawn right next to you and move awkwardly, sprinting is pretty much the same exact speed as walking, uninspired level design, 4 hour long campaign... the list goes on and on.

    It's a shame. I really wanted to like this game as I'm a huge fan of the franchise. All we can hope for now is that EA can get a brain and take the franchise back to its roots... singleplayer campaign focused, no squad mates, WWII setting...    … Expand
  21. BearKiller
    May 16, 2013
    4
    This game is the definition of mediocrity. If the devs really wanted to honor the troops so much, they really should have tried harder on this game, because all I see is lazy work.

    It's just ridiculous little things like stationary models clipping through other objects. Example: a corpse was in a chair and its hands were clipping through the back of the chair. Plus, there are a ton of    This game is the definition of mediocrity. If the devs really wanted to honor the troops so much, they really should have tried harder on this game, because all I see is lazy work.

    It's just ridiculous little things like stationary models clipping through other objects. Example: a corpse was in a chair and its hands were clipping through the back of the chair. Plus, there are a ton of glitches, some of which made me reset my checkpoint because the game stopped working. I don't understand how such a short, linear game can be so unpolished and buggy. It just shows so much laziness.

    One of my biggest pet peeves is invisible walls, and they are everywhere in this game. I don't get why giving the player a little freedom scares these devs. If they wanted to make a movie they should have just done that instead of forcing me into their carefully scripted, planned out sequences. Games are about choice.

    I won't complain about the length, though, because any longer and this game would have overstayed its welcome. I'm glad it was short so I didn't have to trudge through any more of it.    … Expand
  22. Y4nk33
    Mar 28, 2013
    3
    How the hell could this game get bigger score than Warfighter? Graphics are very bad sometimes though its Frostbite, your weapon stands still no matter how ast you move the mouse, scripts are f****d up, you have to restart a mission in single 10 times to make it work, reflex sight looks like a piece of crap on a piece of glass, there are maximum 15 things, that fall apart if you shoot the,How the hell could this game get bigger score than Warfighter? Graphics are very bad sometimes though its Frostbite, your weapon stands still no matter how ast you move the mouse, scripts are f****d up, you have to restart a mission in single 10 times to make it work, reflex sight looks like a piece of crap on a piece of glass, there are maximum 15 things, that fall apart if you shoot the, though in battlefield bad company 2 (working with frostbite too) nearly every thing in the game fell apart if you shoot them or throw grenades at it, story sucks a lot, intro mission 30 minutes long(wtf?), your secondary weapon has infinite bullets no matter its a pistol or an MP7, friendly NPCs dont cant kill anybody, the game sometimes forgots to load the map so you just run in the nowhere, sniper rifle's scope stands still, so you dont have to hold your breath to mak it stand still. In multiplayer is no killcam so the campers give you spawnkill every damn time.… Expand
  23. snowshreder
    Dec 25, 2012
    4
    First lets do a simple comparison, Call of Duty has a good campaign and fast multiplayer environment kinda like speed ball if you will BF3 has a great campaign and a vast multiplayer instead of calling in a bomb strike like on call of duty you need to get in a plane and drop some loads. Now with that being said Medal Of Honor failed in multiple areas here, The campaign was boring andFirst lets do a simple comparison, Call of Duty has a good campaign and fast multiplayer environment kinda like speed ball if you will BF3 has a great campaign and a vast multiplayer instead of calling in a bomb strike like on call of duty you need to get in a plane and drop some loads. Now with that being said Medal Of Honor failed in multiple areas here, The campaign was boring and multiplayer is like call of duty but worse way worse it makes COD look polished. the Graphics are pretty bad the mechanics are crap especially running you get that tunnel vision when you run and cant turn quick. Overall i got the game for $10 steam holiday sale so there are no regrets but i feel MOH has had its last chance with my wallet especially with all of the advertisement which had more thought put in than that of the game.… Expand
  24. BarkSpear
    Jun 29, 2012
    0
    This is possibly the worst excuse for a 'modern game' ever. Single Player (as multiplayer was for some reason made separately): A boring, excessively linear campaign with no interesting or engaging story whatsoever. The physics are terrible, and the graphics are atrocious. They wouldn't look out of place in one of the old conflict games. The enemy AI acts as though it hasn't been finished.This is possibly the worst excuse for a 'modern game' ever. Single Player (as multiplayer was for some reason made separately): A boring, excessively linear campaign with no interesting or engaging story whatsoever. The physics are terrible, and the graphics are atrocious. They wouldn't look out of place in one of the old conflict games. The enemy AI acts as though it hasn't been finished. Too many times I've seen enemy fighters casually strolling around and dying up to ten seconds after I kill them. Finally, its very short, lasting me only three and a half hours. Multiplayer: I've played this for more than eighty hours to unlock everything and get a good feel for it. My conclusion is that I wasted eighty+ hours of my life. I'll start with dev support, of which there doesn't appear to have ever been. Maps are full to the brim of rocks no taller than ankle high that you have to jump over. I've lost count of the amount of times I've died because i suddenly get stuck on them. There are also issues like gaps in walls (which obviously haven't been placed properly) which you can be shot through without being able to see your attacker. Any active devs would have patched these issues. Again, physics are awful. I've played with friends to test this, and headshots do not work. I had a friend crouch, and I shot him point blank in the head with an M16. I got a hit marker, no kill. It took a further four headshots to kill him. This repeats for every other weapon. I only ever achieved headshots when shooting just above the chest on the neck, which forgive me if I'm wrong, isn't the location of one's head. Getting kills online is just as random. Many a time I've melee'd a player, seen blood spurt from there sprite, then had them turn around and shoot me. Realism mode is a joke, and not a funny one. Even here, kills require half a clip and grenades have to be touching a player when they explode to kill. Only yesterday I found a player hiding behind a box in the corner of two walls. As i was too far away to risk breaking cover for a melee kill, i loaded up my noob tube and fired at him from around 10 feet away. Direct hit, no kill. I reloaded, closed to four feet away and fired again. Direct hit, no kill. Friendly fire is quite the opposite. Hitting a mentally challenged teammate who runs in front of you kills in as little as two shots. There is a clear difference in team and enemy health where team damage is concerned. There aren't many weapons in multiplayer, especially concerning handguns, and the ones present fire exactly the same as each other. Shotguns aren't used by anyone, as they cannot kill even at close range. Battle rifles can't kill at any range, especially the G10. Snipers are a constant issue in most maps, although when using the sniper rifle myself, I can't see why. It requires the neck-headshot for a kill, with all other shots even to the heart resulting in a lonely hit marker. Some people just spend so much time camping they get used to it, especially in Helmand Valley (worst map). The maps have been designed quite well, excepting Helmand valley, with very few spots being completely hidden. The airfield map is a favourite, though for some reason is declining on the hugely laggy community servers. They aren't designed with spawn points in mind though, as blatant spawn killing is easy and frequent on all maps. The tower at the end of the airfield actually looks over the final enemy spawn point. Cheating is also quite an issue. I've personally watched three aimbot users randomly turning around super-fast and getting neck-headshots. I personally keep a list of rude, abusive or cheating players, and it is dominated by MoH players. Every time I play with any of them their K/D's are sky high and killing them just doesn't work. Obviously many would say. 'get over it, you're probably wrong', which may be true, but four of those people i wrote down have since been banned after being caught cheating on certain servers. Finally, walls. Again. Bullets penetrate every wall in the game without losing power. Rocks (?!) have the same problem. There is no such thing as cover in this game. Pre-order weapons aren't available even now, even as DLC. Obviously this means most players are denied some cool weapons to break up the monotony of the same boring weapons over and over, and the devs miss an obvious source of income. Conclusion: The devs got bored. That has to be it. This reminds me of Breach in that it has excellent potential, but has been abandoned in a vanilla state with soooooo many issues. I wish I could get my 80 hours refunded. And as for the common argument of those who post 10's (?!), the game is about as realistic as Magicka. It is nothing like the situation in Afghanistan, has no realistic physics and no convincing story or graphics. Please present a viable argument. Oh, and watch out for 1RCN servers. Half the guys flashing their tag have hacked or ignore hackers.… Expand
  25. iamkyo90
    May 19, 2012
    4
    The single player campaign is short, the multiplayer is abandoned. The game gives a sense of unfinished in all its aspects, graphics, sound, gameplay. Maybe they rushed to release this game, but really the Medal of Honor franchise deserves better.
  26. roboticsun
    Nov 27, 2011
    4
    The single player mode of this game is actually OK. Danger Close does a great job at creating an immersive single player campaign that follows a storyline set in 2002-2005 Afghanistan in response to the United States' anti-terrorism campaign. The game suffers from a weak enemy AI which makes the game incredibly easy. Overall the campaign is enjoyable, though short. The multiplayer isThe single player mode of this game is actually OK. Danger Close does a great job at creating an immersive single player campaign that follows a storyline set in 2002-2005 Afghanistan in response to the United States' anti-terrorism campaign. The game suffers from a weak enemy AI which makes the game incredibly easy. Overall the campaign is enjoyable, though short. The multiplayer is repetitive. The maps are good, some are better than others, while some are chaotic depending on what type of game you are playing. Problems with it is its design concept. The multiplayer is nothing like battlefield more like CoD style but with less depth in classes which makes game even less enjoyable in multiplayer session. Overall, The game felt rushed, and design idea is poorly executed. I recommend to get the game below $10 if you do want to play the SP campaign.… Expand
  27. kentMOsabe
    Feb 13, 2011
    0
    I agree with most 0's posted on here this is a terrible game, whoever came up with it should have been fired for coming up with such a fiasco. Not to mention it cost EA millions in investment, their shares fell, nobody bought it, I am sure that this was instantly forgotten in about two weeks. If it wasn't worth buying it the day it was released, then there is no use buying it now, I don'tI agree with most 0's posted on here this is a terrible game, whoever came up with it should have been fired for coming up with such a fiasco. Not to mention it cost EA millions in investment, their shares fell, nobody bought it, I am sure that this was instantly forgotten in about two weeks. If it wasn't worth buying it the day it was released, then there is no use buying it now, I don't think anybody actually plays it. SO the question is what the @#$%& is EA doing, what happened to the guys from Activision they hired? It would have been prudent to ask for your input since they were already hired anyway f%^% puss^ ass dumb&&*es!… Expand
  28. C4K3
    Jan 7, 2011
    2
    The game is severely unbalanced, I don't know what they were thinking. Shotguns can kill people across the map, rifles are better for sniping than the sniper rifles. Maps are some of the worst I've seen in a while. All the good players left the day after it was released, so all the players left are complete ****ters that just camp all the time and spam airstrikes, not even fun to kill themThe game is severely unbalanced, I don't know what they were thinking. Shotguns can kill people across the map, rifles are better for sniping than the sniper rifles. Maps are some of the worst I've seen in a while. All the good players left the day after it was released, so all the players left are complete ****ters that just camp all the time and spam airstrikes, not even fun to kill them because it isn't a challenge.… Expand
  29. liho1eye
    Dec 30, 2010
    0
    Utter fail of a game. Game was releases in not even beta state. Bugs all over, and lack of very basic features. Gameplay is miserable. Every map is a camping fest around single choke point. Objective games are a joke compared to CoD series. Sounds are muted. Graphics is too shiny. Controls clunky. Movement awkward and choppy. Fail all around. How could they release this is beyond me...
  30. Bulsajo
    Dec 26, 2010
    4
    I read the reviews (critics and users) and stayed away until it went on sale on Steam for Xmas. Still not worth the money! The single player campaign is great up to a point but it really is only 6 hours long! Multiplayer is buggy and doesn't cold a candle to Modern Warefare2.
prev
Page:

Awards & Rankings

85
#85 Best PC Game of 2010
17
#17 Most Discussed PC Game of 2010
31
#31 Most Shared PC Game of 2010

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
72

Mixed or average reviews - based on 26 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 16 out of 26
  2. Mixed: 9 out of 26
  3. Negative: 1 out of 26
  1. Worth Playing
    Sep 19, 2011
    75
    Overall, Medal of Honor is visually and aurally outstanding, but it needs much more polish on gameplay, scripted events, character/scene transitions and narrative construction before it's ready to really run with the big dogs.
    Read full review
  2. Absolute Games
    Jan 15, 2011
    60
    Medal of Honor doesn't become the current image of Electronic Arts – probably the most "humane" of all videogame corporations. Danger Close Games' debut reminds of a time when EA was a gloomy assembly line churning out soulless yearly sequels and movie tie-ins.
    Read full review
  3. LEVEL (Czech Republic)
    Jan 13, 2011
    70
    Good news: This is not Call of Duty. Bad news: This is not Call of Duty. Interesting environs and fast paced action can't hide more than a few story holes and the overall stupidity of opponents. [Issue#197]
See all critic reviews »