Medal of Honor: Vanguard

 PlayStation 2
User Score
6.4

Mixed or average reviews- based on 60 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 20 out of 60
  2. Mixed: 28 out of 60
  3. Negative: 12 out of 60
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. critic100
    Apr 9, 2014
    7
    This game is pretty neat. The graphics aren't that bad and it's a pretty good campaign story. My only concerns are that the game is short and there's no online multiplayer.
  2. tangosucka
    Jun 23, 2015
    7
    Oh dear :/ vanguard is definitely the weakest classic medal of honor game, average graphics, average story, combined with forgettable characters and boring gameplay, vanguard just isn't worth your time :/ get its xbox 360 counterpart airborne instead, vanguard is only for die hard fans of the series
  3. Duke_Nukem
    Oct 1, 2015
    7
    In Medal of Honor: Vanguard there are no health packs anymore, you simply take cover and wait for your health to regenerate. Your company mates seem to be shooting in thin air and not hitting any of the enemies. Luckily you don't need to heal them anymore as you had to do in the previous game European Assault.

    There is now the added ability of running by pressing the L2 button, which    In Medal of Honor: Vanguard there are no health packs anymore, you simply take cover and wait for your health to regenerate. Your company mates seem to be shooting in thin air and not hitting any of the enemies. Luckily you don't need to heal them anymore as you had to do in the previous game European Assault.

    There is now the added ability of running by pressing the L2 button, which can be handy to get to a good place for cover quickly. Also you can find upgrades for your weapon in several places around the map.

    The graphics of this game are not much of an improvement over previous instalments. Houses seem empty without any details.

    The levels are quite easy, except for the last one which can be a pain in the butt. The multi-player mode has only 6 maps and they are really small. There is the usual death match and a few variations on capture the flag.

    I rate Medal of Honor: Vanguard with a score of 7 out of 10.    … Expand
  4. hustlie
    Dec 21, 2020
    5
    "Get down, Keegan!"... you hear these words a lot... or at least I did. It was my first time playing a
    Medal of Honor game and I was caught off guard. I was shocked at the level of difficulty it displayed and it had only been the first mission. I'm reconsidering my options at this point, thinking I should just play something else but I'll give it one more shot... it was easy this time.    "Get down, Keegan!"... you hear these words a lot... or at least I did. It was my first time playing a
    Medal of Honor game and I was caught off guard. I was shocked at the level of difficulty it displayed and it had only been the first mission. I'm reconsidering my options at this point, thinking I should just play something else but I'll give it one more shot... it was easy this time. That's when it hit me. I come to realize that I wasn't the one to blame for those last few times I got stuck on that wall, or couldn't pick up ammo properly or swear I peaked and leaned that one guy on the window with the stupid hat but missed entirely. I was destined to win this next mission but I was going to need a little more than just luck to help me, I needed the game to work as it was intended and for the next 15 minutes, to not bug out.

    Honestly, I don't really have much of a problem with this game. Yeah, it's extremely buggy and weird but once you get passed that, it's almost like playing a FPS built for a Windows 95. Not that there was anything wrong with MS-DOS games but let's just say, time wasn't on their side. It's kinda the same thing happening with Medal of Honor: Vanguard, you just have to accept things won't go your way sometimes. That aside though, I found there were some good aspects about the game, like having the setting be based in World War II or having various character stances, having the missions be memorable and of course giving you the ability to have those 360 no scope moments. Not to mention the vast selections of weapons you get to learn about and use throughout, specifically those involved at the time of World War II.

    This game markets itself as "The Bestselling WWII Franchise" and it's honestly deserving of it's title. While it's not much, I have to say I agree. You didn't have all the options in the world but in the FPS genre, sometimes less is more. You want to just be as efficient as possible without having to think too much, and I can honestly say you will feel that effectiveness when playing. For context, you had all your own grenade options at the touch of a button. There was even specific actions for leaning slightly while in aim mode which got me out of so much trouble. I don't there was ever a time I blamed the controls for something and that means a lot considering I couldn't find a perfect control scheme in something like say, 007: Nightfire which had like 6 or 7 to choose from.

    Frankly, I can get down with this game. That's probably the reason I finished it in it's entirety despite everyone else's wishes. I know it might not be the most well-polished or most accepted in the FPS community but if the game is fun but looks terrible, that's still time well spent in my eyes. Personally, I'm looking forward to my next MoH experience, this was only my first but it definitely won't be my last and if a game can pass that modest test then I think it speaks for itself.

    Almost forgot to mention, If you're one of those people who look to games for finding new bangers to play at your next party... this probably isn't the game for you. After thinking about it, I don't really remember any specific type of tracks that stood out to me besides maybe one during a cutscene. Other than that, this game just comes packed with nothing but gun shots, nade explosion FX, people screaming at you all the time and I mean ALL the time and just about what you'd expect out in your typical warzone battlefield. So just appreciate it for what it is. Also, the character models could use some work.

    Whoever the writer for this game is probably didn't have to do much work considering it's based on a true story and was a staple of common school board World history but that aside, the presentation was great. Not much to say other than you probably deserve some recognition for military representation in video games or something. Perhaps, even something in the field of dramatization or transition scenes used when most appropriate in cutscenes. Anything except things in the field of accuracy cause we all know there weren't just random bazookas lying around in 2 story mansions with 3 carts of ammo ready to be picked up when needed back in those days but I wasn't there so I wouldn't know.    … Expand
  5. sebastianali
    Aug 3, 2019
    7
    Los gráficos son increíbles para un juego de PS2 (parecen de la 3 sinceramente) y la jugabiidad acompaña el realismo. Sin embargo, su corta duración y su curva de dificultad es algo a tener en cuenta para la nota. También la historia no es muy memorable que digamos...
    El primer Medal Of Honor que jugué...
  6. Pseudomonki
    Dec 22, 2020
    7
    Particularmente gostava muito da parte de poder jogar duo, o começo era muitk bom só que para o final da primeira ou as 3 primeiras em sí são muito chatas e não funcionais. O jogo é divertido mas o modo campanha né nada demais.
  7. The_D4RknesS
    Nov 14, 2022
    5
    I can't like a game where you kill someone and the body disappears at the same moment, this totally takes away the immersion of the game
    the variety of maps in multiplayer is **** It was supposed to be like 10 map
  8. M1sfiT
    Sep 3, 2023
    6
    Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaameeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees!

Awards & Rankings

65
#65 Best PS2 Game of 2007
15
#15 Most Discussed PS2 Game of 2007
6
#6 Most Shared PS2 Game of 2007

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
63

Mixed or average reviews - based on 29 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 29
  2. Mixed: 22 out of 29
  3. Negative: 3 out of 29
  1. GamesRadar+
    60
    The biggest problems with Vanguard lies in its graphics and overall length. It takes only six to eight hours to complete the game on normal, and graphically the game looks like it’s seen some serious battle.
    Read full review
  2. IGN
    72
    If you’re a Medal of Honor fan, you’ll dig this title...However, if you felt like previous incarnations of this WWII title were getting closer and closer to being dishonorably discharged, Vanguard’s paper-thin story, monotonous maps and upper-level frustration won’t have you saluting this soldier’s latest effort.
    Read full review
  3. Game Informer
    60
    Though you can get used to the sub-par controls, there’s still no real reason to play Vanguard, from the uninspired level design to the tired subject matter. Sure, it works on a basic level in that you shoot Nazis and they fall down. Beyond that, there isn’t much here to enjoy.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »