Medal of Honor

Medal of Honor is about three years behind in all areas, which is a problem. [Issue#65, p.82]

Medal of Honor tries to cram in every trick it can conjure up, but ultimately fails to include the kind of staying power needed to take over from Call of Duty.

Between the online and single-player modes, EA's attempt at rebooting their Medal of Honor franchise after three years missing in action results in a competent game.

The comeback of Medal of Honor is more or less a success, although the game obviously is more traditional than some of it's younger competitors. The singleplayer paints a realistic picture of Afghanistan, but the scripting is pretty bad. The multiplayer is hard and fast and takes some getting used to. An enjoyable package.

Despite its faults, or all the things that could have been more polished, there's a lot of enjoyment on offer. If only Danger Close and DICE were prepared to put in just a little bit more effort during the development process to separate Medal of Honor from the rest of the flock in this saturated genre, we could have been looking at something very special indeed.

But it never crosses the threshold into greatness, either in its visceral thrills or in its sober, but ultimately a little bland, tale of the soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan.

It's an inconsistent package that doesn't fully deliver on the single-player, nor distinguish itself enough in multiplayer to make it an Xbox Live contender. A real shame.

Medal of Honor's balancing act combines two developers and game engines. Lofty ambitions on both fronts are ultimately let down by very little desire to redefine the game's range or bring out the best from each engine's particular set of talents, but it's undeniable that both single and multiplayer have their individual merits.

Good solid action, but the singleplayer campaign is way too short and the multiplayer just doesn't live up to EA's previous Battlefield: Bad Company 2.

This is not the prestigious resuscitation of the series I had hoped for. There are valiant moments of glory that shine through the debris, although they are always burdened by mechanical gameplay and shallow characters that expect you to care without reason.

All the parts for a great multiplayer experience are here – class unlocks, a variety of familiar modes, lots of guns – but they don't come together in a way that makes Medal of Honor a must-play shooter. Military buffs may enjoy the game on some level, but in such a densely packed genre, EA must try harder to stand out.

By attempting to topple the genre's leaders and offering nothing new or exciting, Medal of Honor unfortunately pales in comparison to the competition. The single-player is short, but rather than being short and sweet, it's a little soulless, while the multiplayer, which is plagued by some bizarre design choices, falls somewhere between Bad Company 2 and Modern Warfare 2, and in comparison to those two big hitters, it's clear it doesn't offer the same engaging and worthwhile experiences.

As a whole, Medal of Honor is not a horrible game; it just needed some more time for it to truly shine.

Unfortunately, with the issues the game has in its short singleplayer campaign and the lack of originality in the multiplayer, Medal of Honor is a decent enough shooter and reboot of the franchise, but isn't the blockbuster that EA was aiming to deliver.

The single player campaign is a lot of fun with some great moments sprinkled in. It's really short though and some bugs crept into the product that made it a little annoying. MP Summary: Multiplayer looks good from what we've seen and could challenge Modern Warfare 2's throne if supported by EA and DICE over the long haul.

And to be honest, multiplayer is a lot of fun, and even though I wish it offered up something that Bad Company 2 didn't already cover, I do think it's worth checking out for people that aren't already fans of what DICE has done before.

It's truly a shame this game falls so flatly on its face, as there was so much potential in the title early on. Disappointingly, that potential is never realized, and Medal of Honor is just another average shooter.

Realistic and immersive war situations, however, don't make for great gameplay.

Unfinished, or at the very least, unpolished. [Issue#102, p.112]

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.

EA's take on the modern shooter is good but not great. The combat is genuinely thrilling, but the heavy scripting and predictable plot points leave little room for surprises. Multiplayer is fun but not different from what we're already playing.

An unremarkable and derivative first person shooter that uses the cover of controversy to hide a game severely lacking in courage and ambition.

Though the setting may sound a bit edgy, in practice Medal of Honor offers a brief campaign with little story and a smattering of technical issues that range from annoying to decidedly disappointing. It also delivers a multiplayer component that feels like it's desperately trying to split the difference between Modern Warfare 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2. There are flashes of excitement peppered across the game's modes, but it's hard to get too excited about any of that when it's been done better elsewhere.

Quotation forthcoming.

I really had hope for Medal of Honor and I was excited at the prospect of Call of Duty getting some competition, but I think we'll have to wait for the ex-Infinity Ward guys to be the ones to do it. Simply put, Medal of Honor is kind of a mess, and the whole is worth less than the sum of its component pieces.

What we get is an amalgam that is best labeled "Battlefield Warfare" -- an admittedly entertaining concoction, but one that tastes awfully familiar.

It's too little, too late. With fierce competition to hinder its efforts, Medal of Honor fails to provide, both in terms of quantity and quality, an alternative of choice. It's still an above average experience, but the campaign remains stuck between the realism angle and the needed fireworks of the genre, unable to impress on either one of them, while the multiplayer sacrifices deepness and precision in order to remain more accessible and bridge the imaginary gap between Battlefield Bad Company 2 and Modern Warfare. No co-op, too few maps, a globally poorly designed from a gameplay and tactics standpoint, stuck on top of an otherwise good game design ; too bad.

Medal of Honor represents a decent comeback for the series, with the somewhat special backdrop of an ongoing conflict. The story is thin and we've seen most of the gameplay in similar titles before. In other words, nothing new or groungbreaking from EA Games.

Combined with Danger Close's fixation on delivering an experience about a war that Americans are deeply ambivalent about, and multiplayer that remains likely to incite controversy about its content after players have moved on to deeper, more engaging multiplayer options, Medal of Honor is one of the bigger disappointments of 2010.