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. DustyPig
    Jul 20, 2011
    7
    With an emotional singleplayer campaign and addictive multiplayer, Medal of Honor might sound good at the start, but the game is riddled with problems. In the singleplayer, the enemies are extremely dumb, and the game has too many 'Target that enemy position with your laser designator Dante!' and 'Target that enemy position with your laser designator Rabbit!' moments. I'm sure thatsWith an emotional singleplayer campaign and addictive multiplayer, Medal of Honor might sound good at the start, but the game is riddled with problems. In the singleplayer, the enemies are extremely dumb, and the game has too many 'Target that enemy position with your laser designator Dante!' and 'Target that enemy position with your laser designator Rabbit!' moments. I'm sure thats realistic in war nowadays, but if the game was meant to be realistic I guess pistols wouldn't have unlimited ammo and there would be no invisible walls.
    Multiplayer is fun... for a day. After you play through every map twice it simply ends up being a case of 'Oh its this map. Now, lets see, I go to this position, enemies will come through here...' etc. It doesn't bring anything new to the table but DICE did a good job with the levelling up, which makes the multiplayer slightly compelling.    … Expand
  2. SFN
    Apr 7, 2011
    7
    ok the good things about this game, the campaign is amazing, the graphics are good at best and it pays tribute to the troops fighting fro us right now, the bad, the multiplayer sucks, i thought it was gonna be the same as battlefield but better but sadly it wasnt, you can be sniped from across the map and have no idea where it came from, they dont tell you or even give you a hint whereok the good things about this game, the campaign is amazing, the graphics are good at best and it pays tribute to the troops fighting fro us right now, the bad, the multiplayer sucks, i thought it was gonna be the same as battlefield but better but sadly it wasnt, you can be sniped from across the map and have no idea where it came from, they dont tell you or even give you a hint where their at and its really annoying, DICE better do better than this in battlefield 3… Expand
  3. Aragond
    Apr 29, 2011
    7
    Despite the appalling lack of a "U", and an admittedly somewhat linear game-play, I actually enjoyed this thoroughly. I normally do not like linear, preferring the sandbox end of the spectrum, but in truth it doesn't feel quite so linear and fixed. There is some room for ingenuity, even if shooting that guy does turn into a firefight with twelve guys, you can live through that. I respectDespite the appalling lack of a "U", and an admittedly somewhat linear game-play, I actually enjoyed this thoroughly. I normally do not like linear, preferring the sandbox end of the spectrum, but in truth it doesn't feel quite so linear and fixed. There is some room for ingenuity, even if shooting that guy does turn into a firefight with twelve guys, you can live through that. I respect games that have thought this through. (Or maybe Homefront really has scarred me for life.) Perhaps it was the EXCELLENT storyline, which was both exciting and varied, or perhaps the ... look, it FELT real, it felt desperate, it felt... I felt that cold, every bump in that road... There was FAR more realism in this than anything CoD I have played. And THAT this came from the normally woeful EA is all the more astounding.… Expand
  4. DrBrogbo
    Jun 4, 2012
    7
    I was surprised by this game. First, the previews made it sound awesome, then initial reviews were terrible, then once people got over the price-shock, reviews started to improve. I picked this game up for $5, and didn't expect much, but I genuinely enjoyed it. The graphics are not the best (definitely not horrible though), and there were a few missions that absolutely pissed me off (oneI was surprised by this game. First, the previews made it sound awesome, then initial reviews were terrible, then once people got over the price-shock, reviews started to improve. I picked this game up for $5, and didn't expect much, but I genuinely enjoyed it. The graphics are not the best (definitely not horrible though), and there were a few missions that absolutely pissed me off (one of the stealth missions), but once I decided to screw it and just kill everyone, it stopped being annoying. The campaign was fairly short (decent length for a shooter), but it was well done. This is definitely a story-driven FPS, and it pulls it off well. The ending was actually quite touching, and I absolutely loved how they dedicated the game to all the unsung heroes laying their lives on the line every day. Now that it's no longer $60, I recommend picking up a copy if you like shooters. I enjoyed it. Never tried multiplayer, but I hate the latest blend of kill-streak competitive multiplayer shooters anyway, so meh.… Expand
  5. Ideclarewar901
    Mar 7, 2012
    7
    I do not know what the hell people are talking about trying to say this is a ''Mimic of Modern Warfare 2'' This guy is stupid, i hope he knew Call of Duty existed WAY after Medal of Honor was created... This game is entirely based on a Real Military Operation. The characters names are real, this is not a crappy game contredicting shooter originality (War) Games. It's been a very awesomeI do not know what the hell people are talking about trying to say this is a ''Mimic of Modern Warfare 2'' This guy is stupid, i hope he knew Call of Duty existed WAY after Medal of Honor was created... This game is entirely based on a Real Military Operation. The characters names are real, this is not a crappy game contredicting shooter originality (War) Games. It's been a very awesome campaign. The developpers are actually going for Realism, since the first MOH. This game will keep being true stories forever. This is their goal. The action is bad? No. The action is Real. Call of duty is not real. Tired of hearing little stupid kids that doesn't know what is real war commenting that kind of thing. I am in the army and wait till you shoot a real guy in real life. Stop being stupid. Let's get back to the game content now, very good story (Real story). The gun sound are realistic for the most part. The music is beautiful (Heroes Abroad) Atleast. I think this is a great game, and cannot wait to play Medal of Honor: Warfighter. This game gets a 7/10 from me because of the realism, the emotion you get when playing the game, and also the campaign. Multiplayer has been terribad though. But this game wasn't goaled to be a good Multiplayer game. Go play Battlefield if it is what you want.… Expand
  6. monkeyspunk
    Apr 3, 2013
    7
    As a gaming Vet if you say Medal of Honor i think Awesome single player war game this is a mix match of good single and multiplayer warfare and i enjoy it but think they are losing the plot when it comes to MoH games.
  7. Savedbyfaith
    Oct 31, 2013
    7
    I encourage anyone reading these reviews not to be detoured from this game. There are a lot of COD fanyboys out there but if you are like me and enjoy a variety of FPS games then check this one out. Saying that though i have to suggest not to pay over 5 dollars because of how short it is and the lack of character development. That aside the graphics are decent even by today's standards theI encourage anyone reading these reviews not to be detoured from this game. There are a lot of COD fanyboys out there but if you are like me and enjoy a variety of FPS games then check this one out. Saying that though i have to suggest not to pay over 5 dollars because of how short it is and the lack of character development. That aside the graphics are decent even by today's standards the shooting mechanics are good and the sound design is great. This game goes for realism in a respectful way for our armed forces (they even pay homage to them at the end) the if you are a more mature person you will get the story and will feel for the characters.… Expand
  8. muzmuz
    Nov 5, 2016
    6
    Talk about incomprehensible story, awkward controls and animations, unstable event triggers, confusing objectives, seemingly limitless enemies, what else? Medal of Honor 2010 failed to blow me away. Nonetheless, it's somehow fun 'til it lasted.
  9. adoru
    Nov 4, 2010
    7
    Enjoyed it - looked great on the PC, voice acting was top notch, script was good. Really fun...then it ended. Out of nowhere, the game was over and credits rolling. Would have loved another 5-10 hours of gameplay. Can't speak for the multiplayer as I don't really do that, but the SP was great - just short.
  10. ochentay4
    Oct 25, 2010
    6
    Call of Duty series is better. But if you like war shooters you have to play this.
    The campaign is very good, has very intense moments, and its varied. I bought this game ONLY for the campaign. And its good. I Love war shooter games
    The sound is excellent. I played with headphones and the effects and music are top notch. The graphics are not that good, it uses Unreal 3 engine for SP    Call of Duty series is better. But if you like war shooters you have to play this.
    The campaign is very good, has very intense moments, and its varied. I bought this game ONLY for the campaign. And its good. I Love war shooter games
    The sound is excellent. I played with headphones and the effects and music are top notch.
    The graphics are not that good, it uses Unreal 3 engine for SP portion and Frostbite for MP. On SP, it looks very good on some parts but overall the looks are mediocre and it requires a lot of horsepower where other games do not (Crysis plays better on my pc...). Textures are bland, enemies move weird, cant shoot ANYTHING except enemies, particles are crap and for a PC it has a lot of tearing.
    The gameplay is very good on most parts. But the game has bugs. Its ridden with bugs, some gamebreaking bugs are terrible and needs fixing as soon as possible (search for Hellfire bug).
    I did not play MP portion though.
    Recommend it for SP only and only for fans.    … Expand
  11. Trixr
    May 24, 2011
    5
    Good enough on the first playthough - visuals average, storyline ok (seemed not to bad in terms of realism), but it was way too short. I'm not a great player, but even I finished it in about 4 hours. I don't play multiplayer and the "tier 1" thing is a joke. Considering the amount of money I paid for this game, it is not worth paying full price for. I could have watched 6 movies for theGood enough on the first playthough - visuals average, storyline ok (seemed not to bad in terms of realism), but it was way too short. I'm not a great player, but even I finished it in about 4 hours. I don't play multiplayer and the "tier 1" thing is a joke. Considering the amount of money I paid for this game, it is not worth paying full price for. I could have watched 6 movies for the same price and had 9-12 hours (more than twice as much) worth of entertainment with a heck of a lot more diversity. When it comes to gaming and watching movies, the economics should be the other way round.… Expand
  12. thegameplayaz
    Dec 8, 2010
    7
    This latest instalment in the Medal of Honour series almost seems like it is a showcase of Electronics Artâ
  13. Knarfenstein
    Nov 12, 2010
    7
    Overall Medal of Honor is a decent reboot of the long standing franchise. The single player campaign while extremely short is paced well and offers a decent amount of variety. The squad AI does a great job of making you feel like they are contributing in a meaningful way to the battle. Often they'll offer up verbal clues as to where you can find enemies which defiantly helps with theOverall Medal of Honor is a decent reboot of the long standing franchise. The single player campaign while extremely short is paced well and offers a decent amount of variety. The squad AI does a great job of making you feel like they are contributing in a meaningful way to the battle. Often they'll offer up verbal clues as to where you can find enemies which defiantly helps with the immersion making you actually feel like you're a part of a top notch special forces team. Visually the game does a good job offering up a decent amount of variety from snowy mountain ranges to dust parched wastelands and devastated urban environments.
    The problem with the game is the lack-luster multiplayer component. Unfortunately there just isn't enough variety and ends up coming across as quite plain. In the end its hard for me to justify the purchase of the game because of the short single player experience and the vanilla multiplayer offering.
    While a fun time it mostly feels like an appetizer when you should be getting an entree for the 60$ admission fee.    … Expand
  14. WillKill
    Dec 5, 2010
    7
    An obvious ripoff of Modern Warfare. Don't get me wrong, I'm no CoD fanboy at all, but I know a fake when I see one. The singleplayer is fun at some points, dull at others, and very short. It has a lot of cheap drama and it fails to capture any emotion. The multiplayer is good, but why play a game made similar and by the same creators as BFBC2 when you could just play BFBC2? It's a goodAn obvious ripoff of Modern Warfare. Don't get me wrong, I'm no CoD fanboy at all, but I know a fake when I see one. The singleplayer is fun at some points, dull at others, and very short. It has a lot of cheap drama and it fails to capture any emotion. The multiplayer is good, but why play a game made similar and by the same creators as BFBC2 when you could just play BFBC2? It's a good fps, but there are better ones out there. This game was made to take advantage of the market CoD created.… Expand
  15. Jacer200
    Oct 21, 2012
    6
    This is one of the worst ports I have ever played. There are no AA settings and the FOV is very poor. This is one of the shortest fps games I have ever played @ about 5hrs. With that said the action is past paced and fun. People talk about MoH as being realistic, but it's not. This is more of an arcade shooter. The on bright spot in this game is the audio for people Sound BlasterThis is one of the worst ports I have ever played. There are no AA settings and the FOV is very poor. This is one of the shortest fps games I have ever played @ about 5hrs. With that said the action is past paced and fun. People talk about MoH as being realistic, but it's not. This is more of an arcade shooter. The on bright spot in this game is the audio for people Sound Blaster Titanium HD sound cards. When you configure your sound in Windows to output 5.1 channels, set MoH sound to Theater, turn on CMSS-3d in sound card settings and use headphones (LOL) you get really good audio.… Expand
  16. trooper1993
    Oct 20, 2010
    5
    The singleplayer was very dissapointing, it felt more like a Mod rather than a true epic game.
    In Call of duty, the developers created a mood, in which the player actually felt like he was interacting with the storyline, MoH instead felt just dull and boring, the missions felt all alike with nothing exciting ever happening. One thing I think everybody noticed , is that the developers    The singleplayer was very dissapointing, it felt more like a Mod rather than a true epic game.
    In Call of duty, the developers created a mood, in which the player actually felt like he was interacting with the storyline, MoH instead felt just dull and boring, the missions felt all alike with nothing exciting ever happening. One thing I think everybody noticed , is that the developers didn't bother to try something new, they didn't try at all to make it a unique game, which differentiated itself from all the other typical first person shooters. The graphics maybe are the only reason this game deserves a five.    … Expand
  17. spartan2600
    Oct 18, 2010
    7
    Its hard to review this game because its really two very different games. The multiplayer game gets 10/10 for me. I tried the beta demo and was hooked- EA knew what they were doing! However, the single player is **** awful. I played 30 minutes of it and got bored. Its extremely linear and simple. Tactics aren't needed. You run to a place, see 5 Al Quada members scramble to cover- you canIts hard to review this game because its really two very different games. The multiplayer game gets 10/10 for me. I tried the beta demo and was hooked- EA knew what they were doing! However, the single player is **** awful. I played 30 minutes of it and got bored. Its extremely linear and simple. Tactics aren't needed. You run to a place, see 5 Al Quada members scramble to cover- you can kill 3 of them while they're running around- and you pick of their heads in another 2 seconds. Rinse. Repeat. Its like a sub-par Playstation 2 shooter, or Time Crisis 2 (without the fun). There's no puzzles, no strategy, no novelty, it really feels like a weak shooter from 2002. For some odd reason the graphics are not as good as the multiplayer. SP graphics are a little bland. Single player feels like it only exists to give context to the multiplayer maps. SP is basically all the multiplayer maps chained together with some more streets in between and some cutscenes (the only part of SP I liked were the cutscenes).

    The multiplayer is an entirely different game. Everything about it rocks. The sound design, the graphics, the gameplay... This game is mostly about finding cover and good vantage points, killing enemies and waiting for a chance to advance. Cover fire from teamates is very valuable- and the game rewards it. Each kill gets you XP points, you get extra for headshots, savior kills, revenge kills, destroying vehicles, coordinating attacks and a few other things. XP gained with each class unlocks new weapons and weapon tweaks for that class only. You aren't allowed to choose what upgrade you can get like Battlefield games, but that doesn't bother me.

    I've only played COD for 2 minutes- I quit after a 7-year-old screamed **** at me (that sums up what I think of COD and Halo). However, I've always been a fan of Battlefield (2 and 2142, but I've never played Modern Warfare). MOH seems to improve on the class systems of the BF games- nobody is stuck being a medic (the health system is exactly like Gears of War- when you get hit you start seeing red and blood spatter on the edge of the screen. get to cover and you heal in 5 seconds or so, but it doesn't take much to kill someone). Also, nobody is forced to sit around and play commander. Scorechains give access to mortar/missile strikes and radar sweeps. I think this is how COD works too (maybe?). And permanent ammo boxes are spread around the map (for some game types).

    Its hard to think of any problems with MP. There have been some servers where you get stuck on a terrible team, and there is no team balance, but this is easily remedied (ragequit). I've only gotten about a 1/5 of the way up the weapon unlock thing, but it seems like I'll probably have everything unlocked after maybe only 20 hours of gameplay (roughly estimating). I remember unlocking weapons in BF2 or 2142 was a huge deal since it only came once in such a long time. Then again, with MOH unlocking everything is within everyone's grasp and not just for those who play 10 hours a day.

    Overall, I have to give this game a 7. A great multiplayer game alone is worth $40-45, but this game cost $60, and at 60 I expect at least a good single player experience. Rated separately, the MP is 10/10, the SP 4/10.    … Expand
  18. Brumbek
    Nov 11, 2011
    5
    Just a throwaway FPS. Nothing special about this at all. This is a game that adds nothing to the genre. Why EA would think the world wants another knock-off military FPS, I don't know...MP was fun for about 2 hours. The SP was full of weird glitches, invincible enemies, wacko AI. Blah. It wasn't as horrible as Homefront; that's the best thing I can say about it. I'll give it a 5 becauseJust a throwaway FPS. Nothing special about this at all. This is a game that adds nothing to the genre. Why EA would think the world wants another knock-off military FPS, I don't know...MP was fun for about 2 hours. The SP was full of weird glitches, invincible enemies, wacko AI. Blah. It wasn't as horrible as Homefront; that's the best thing I can say about it. I'll give it a 5 because I'm feeling generous.… Expand
  19. thebigalex
    Oct 12, 2010
    6
    Worst Game 2010. Played the Singleplayer yesterday in only 6 hours. A few bugs and scripting errors occurred. It was just boring. No atmosphere, no action. Just kill Talibans. Move there. Kill Talibans. Hold Position. Kill Talibans. Move there. ...
  20. JohnR
    Oct 15, 2010
    5
    The solo campaign has bugs that prevent progress through the game unless the player is canny enough to search the web for a work-around. The DICE multiplayer part of the game is mediocre due to the lack of vehicles, maps, destructible structures, and having to play in small environments that are confined by invisible walls. What were they thinking? If I had known about the poor QA andThe solo campaign has bugs that prevent progress through the game unless the player is canny enough to search the web for a work-around. The DICE multiplayer part of the game is mediocre due to the lack of vehicles, maps, destructible structures, and having to play in small environments that are confined by invisible walls. What were they thinking? If I had known about the poor QA and design decisions going into this title I would have held on to my money. The most professional element of this game was the advertising campaign that convinced so many of us that it was worth buying.… Expand
  21. monkza
    Oct 27, 2010
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Medal Of Honor was good before ... but now the game is a joke... seriously if u want to pay 65$ for a game whos long about 15hours++ do not buy this... the Singleplayer is really short maybe 3-4 hours max the action is good yes but the missions are so short... and im not talking about all the bug ingame... The Multiplayer is really terrible again we have killstreak who actually kill the game getting killed by a random rocket from the sky is not funny the maps are small and there is like 15 weapons... dont buy this game… Expand
  22. Onrush
    May 29, 2015
    7
    The game delivered. Had massive fun with it in my younger days. It filled its own niche and was a relaxing break from the cod franchise. Good times, good times.
  23. Deadatthescene
    Oct 13, 2010
    7
    There are a lot of mixed reviews and I'm going to try and be honest here. I hate reading reviews where people are like "OMG SUCKS SO BAD." If your points aren't valid I don't think it's fair to those who worked so hard on the game.

    Given that, I think this is a solid shooter with some a couple of major overlooked issues. Starting with the single player. I played this in one afternoon.    There are a lot of mixed reviews and I'm going to try and be honest here. I hate reading reviews where people are like "OMG SUCKS SO BAD." If your points aren't valid I don't think it's fair to those who worked so hard on the game.

    Given that, I think this is a solid shooter with some a couple of major overlooked issues.

    Starting with the single player. I played this in one afternoon. Roughly 5 hours long, I felt it was concise, action packed, but on the short side. I feel that developers feel that can get away with it. But what happened to 12 hour games? This isn't no Fallout 3 (I easily spent 60 hours on that game), but 5 hours? Eh. Despite the shortness, I really enjoyed this game.

    Graphically, this game is on par with other shooters out there, nothing new and amazing, but it looks good. There are some great parts with really impressive lighting, things blow up, fire looks decent, again, on par with other shooters but nothing crazy.

    Sound, now I'm a composer and audio engineer and I thought the sound was well done. I felt that the voice overs and communication was very authentic, explosions were huge and gunfire is rock solid. A couple of strange mix decisions (the melee sounds like your hacking into a log with a big axe, a little overkill and loud). But I love the dynamics of the gunfights because you go from in your face to absolute silent desert ambiance. Strongest suit of this game has to be the audio.

    Is this game original? Meh. I felt like I was playing MW2 again. Slow motion, kicking down doors, trekking through the snow. Little bit of driving, little bit of sniping. It's all good to me, though, it sure as hell kept me entertained. I also don't know what the hell people are talking about in relation to story. Sure, the game has no real engaging story, but I feel that this flowed way better than the story in Modern Warefare 2. That game just doesn't make any sense. This actually has a flow between missions, you're never guessing what character you are playing or what your mission is, it's very straight forward. Now onto a couple of negatives now that I dug into that...

    Video cutscenes are laaaaame. I don't understand why half of the action packed parts aren't live. Maybe it has to do with rendering, conserving disk space... I don't know. But I wish the whole thing was in-game/in-engine instead of prerendered cutscenes. Just a little detail, I know, but just an observation.

    Bugs bugs bugs. Not a whole lot but sure as hell some bugs that should have been caught by QA. "Come on, follow me this way..." as he crouches in the sand... Really? You make me restart my missions because the scripts didn't work? Terrible overlook on the scripts. Tons of them were too slow or bugged out. I'd often be so far ahead I'm waiting for the guys to come to me or I'd have to go back to trigger some sort of script. This seems to be the biggest issue with the game. It took me out of the moment a couple times, but it doesn't destroy the game or render it unplayable. It's just a little frustrating at times.

    Multiplayer... This is where feelings get hurt...

    It doesn't play well in my honest opinion. I've played the Call of Duty series since the first one and they simply have the formula down. This one doesn't work. Weapons are unbalanced. No prone makes for awkwardness. Sniping and RPGs are ridiculous. The maps are teeny tiny and are not designed well. Camping galore. And spawn camping and spawn kills are also insanely stupid. And the matches seem way too short and are not as team based as they make it out to be. Honestly, skip the multiplayer. I never played BC2. So I can't compare. All I can say is I have much more fun playing MW2 than this multiplayer. Simply because it feels more balanced (minus n00b tubes and knives). There is more to choose from, and it is feature rich. YES, MW2 is more arcadey but for someone like me, I'm not looking for an ultrarealistic game. If that's what you want, neither MoH nor CoD truely offer that. The MP component on this game is dry and feels unfinished, it's really hard to explain.

    All in all. This is a renter or borrow from a friend or buy used later... You can beat the game in one day, and skip the multiplayer. Is it a terrible game? No, this is a solid game and the guys at Danger Close did a great job. Could this have been better? Oh man, my expectations were high and this game baaaarely came close. Just barely. That's why I give it a 7.    … Expand
  24. Rocket
    Oct 15, 2010
    5
    HI am a hard core gamers (R(+)cKeT) hi play so many games in the pass years Medal of Honor 2010 is not the best moh hi see dose pass years!!!MOH allied assault is the best moh whit score 9.1 hi ill never see MOH like pass years , EA make copy of COD 6 , EA dont have inspiration too make a very good games they make this games for $$$ , the story in this games about the same think of CODHI am a hard core gamers (R(+)cKeT) hi play so many games in the pass years Medal of Honor 2010 is not the best moh hi see dose pass years!!!MOH allied assault is the best moh whit score 9.1 hi ill never see MOH like pass years , EA make copy of COD 6 , EA dont have inspiration too make a very good games they make this games for $$$ , the story in this games about the same think of COD 6""""""" hi give 7 score for good graphic games ,,,

    hi ill never buy this games for prices is about 59.99 $ CAN money !!!    … Expand
  25. murut87
    Feb 25, 2012
    5
    well,nothing special about this game.....MOH said a true realistic-shooter game but they give us a copy-paste COD game.Multiplayer is damn good to play but single player is full of glitches and POP-UP textures.The single player story is damn forgettable and the AI is weird.....save your money on another game instead.
  26. db87
    Nov 22, 2010
    6
    Single player runs on a old game engine while the multi player doesn't. Graphics of the Single player are average. For a game of 2010 it really lacks of Physics. Single player is great but way to short. Reason for that is that the American army didn't want you to be able to play a Al-Qaeda terrorist so they dropt that part of the game completely. This game is marketed as the best shooterSingle player runs on a old game engine while the multi player doesn't. Graphics of the Single player are average. For a game of 2010 it really lacks of Physics. Single player is great but way to short. Reason for that is that the American army didn't want you to be able to play a Al-Qaeda terrorist so they dropt that part of the game completely. This game is marketed as the best shooter but that does raise the bar quite a bit to high for 'just another sequel'. So the disappointment can be quite big for multiple reasons.
    But the game doesn't do much wrong compared to its predecessors either. My personal critic of this game and many similar shooters is that you are saddled with stupid team mates that ad nothing to the game and you can not complete the mission your way. For example you can't go stealthy or take a another way, its just way to linear, just checkpoint to checkpoint. (Stupid) game developers call it the Hollywood experience. The single player is better than Battlefield: Bad Company 2 but EA shouldn't have forced to bring this game so soon to the market just to be earlier than Call of Duty Black ops.    … Expand
  27. 25yeargamer
    May 5, 2011
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. finished this game the day seal team 6 killed obama ironically in about 6 hours (really short game and ending is like what?) it was a magical moment that felt like i was virtually helping in the fight from my home computer as news of bin ladens death came across t.v.. this game brought a real navy seal feel to the big gun fights and ending does have the final mission with 2 seals. it is a fun single/campaign that does totally immerse you into what it is like being in pakistan (where the real terrorist live-not afghanistan like pakistan wanted us to believe) fighting bin laden look alikes never gets old in this game and killing the pakistanis is a lot of fun and worth the 30 bucks to play for the good sound and great graphics. do not even think about mp it has like 30 players total-this is the worst multiplayer game ever played and i been playing for a long time. hit detect is awful, bullets from some guns do no damage, while you die fast from others (hackers i assume but cant tell because no killcam=fail.… Expand
  28. Arikon
    May 17, 2011
    5
    I am sorry, but bad games are bad. And this is a good example of one. The single player is decent and the graphics are good, but the multiplayer is nothing short of broken. Take bad company 2, cut the maps into about 1/10 the size and make the prone option still unavailable. Now drop the power on the guns, remove the destructible buildings, and keep the tanks overpowered. Any fun thatI am sorry, but bad games are bad. And this is a good example of one. The single player is decent and the graphics are good, but the multiplayer is nothing short of broken. Take bad company 2, cut the maps into about 1/10 the size and make the prone option still unavailable. Now drop the power on the guns, remove the destructible buildings, and keep the tanks overpowered. Any fun that was included in bad company, has been dropped in this game.… Expand
  29. Ghoster
    Jun 2, 2012
    6
    This game have too much bad reviews then it deserve. It's multiplayer is not close to BF awesomeness, but not bad as COD also. Some unbalanced things in game give space to some players to abuse that which sometimes ruin game to players which expect variety. Until end of the year new MOH is announced. They have only few things to make better and this game have potential to become score 10!
  30. Mahdiar
    Jul 6, 2016
    7
    Gameplay : 7
    Graphics : 8
    Story : 7
    Sound : 8
    **********************************************************************************
    Overall : 7
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 »