[360/PS3] Medal of Honor Review

[AgtFox]

Medal of Honor Review

Title: Medal of Honor
Platform: 360/PS3 (also available on PC)
Developer: Danger Close (Campaign)/DICE (Multiplayer)
Publisher: Electronic Arts
ESRB: M
MSRP: $59.99 (360/PS3 w/Remastered MOH: Frontline/PC)
Editor: Loren 'AgtFox' Halek

What's Hot: The graphics are pretty good with some caveats; sound effects are really excellent, especially the bigger guns; levels are well thought out; if you’re into emotion this game has tons of it

What's Not: Graphical glitches are abundant (graphic tears, you moving into another person, etc.); story manipulates your emotions; feels like they were covering a checklist to equal the modern Call of Duty games

Electronic Arts has laid down the gauntlet in their battle with Activision. Resurrecting a series from the early years of this century and thrusting it from World War II to modern day, basically copying what Infinity Ward (who way back when did the well loved PC Medal of Honor games and whose creators are now back with EA Partners) has done with the Call of Duty games. The major difference between the two series is that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare is based in a fictional future while this new Medal of Honor is based on real events that happened in Afghanistan during early 2002 (supposedly loosely based on Operation Anaconda), not long after the bombing of the World Trade Center in 2001. The characters in the game are fictional, including the reappearance of a Sergeant Jim Patterson, the grandson of Lt. Jimmy Patterson who you played as in the first game and who appeared throughout the series.

The game has you take control of many different characters as you move through the Campaign. You will spend about half the game as “Rabbit”, a part of the AFO Neptune SEAL team that is running covert operations in Afghanistan. His team consists of three other people: “Mother”: (the commanding officer), “Voodoo” and “Preacher”. Their first task is to meet up with an Afghan informant that will give them information about how many enemy soldiers are in the Shah-i-Kot Valley. They find out that the numbers are far greater than anyone thought. They are then tasked with finding and taking over Bagram Airfield with a bunch of friendly Afghan soldiers. When things go wrong we are introduced to the Colonel in charge of operations and the General in charge of everything who sits in the Pentagon. General Flagg is of course presented as a man out of touch with what’s happening since he is thousands of miles away. The Colonel tries to stand up for his teams that are out there, but the General overrules him and tells him to send in more troops. Here is where we are introduced to the second team, the AFO Wolfpack, a Special Forces team consisting of “Panther”, “Vegas”, “Dusty” and the character you play, “Deuce”. Deuce, at least to me, seems to be a sharpshooter since most of the time while playing him you are tasked with taking out people as silently as possible from a distance. You also encounter the first vehicle section in the game that you control here, driving ATVs through the dark with your optics on. You generally spend your time with Dusty, the character who is on the cover of the game with the beard. He gives you orders when you two are alone and does a good job of guarding you as you take your long-range shots.

Eventually you jump to a group of Army Rangers who the General has ordered into the area. They are shot at as their Chinook is landing and basically are put into an overwhelming situation. Some fellow soldiers die, but somehow you, as Specialist Dante Adams makes it out and is put under the command of the aforementioned Sergeant Jim Patterson along with Corporal Hernandez and Tech Sergeant Ybarra to fill out the team. Also at one point you take control of a helicopter’s guns and missiles, but not the actual flying, through Captain Brad “Hawk” Hawkins. That makes up the four characters you control through the game. There’s obviously other things that happen and you are jumping around between characters from time to time.

Do I think Medal of Honor is a good game from just the Campaign area? Yes, I do, but I also notice the problems. As I was playing I really felt like Danger Close had a checklist close to them of things that made the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare games cool. Good graphics…check, vehicle sections…check, jumping between characters…check, more realism (this is the first M rated MOH)…yes and so on. The comparisons are obvious, but maybe this is more because of the genre than anything else. I don’t think the graphics here are as good as Call of Duty. I think the Unreal engine really hurts this game because there is a lot of texture pop-in, graphic tears and the ability to walk through other characters or see them put their body through a solid object. There is a really good side to the graphics though: the explosions, dust storms, the blaring sun and the like are excellently represented and affect your ability to see enemies.

I think the Campaign is a bit too short at about 5 hours of play. The gameplay is relatively tight and there is plenty of action to be found in that short time. The story is serviceable and there is a lot of military speak going on, but then again they are shooting for realism here. I know some people have complained about other characters giving you an order to kick in a door or do something else instead of doing it on your own. Well, I’m pretty sure this is how the military works in that you take orders from your commanding officer (or one of higher rank in Dusty’s case) in the team and don’t personally take charge of everything in a “you against the world setting” that is popular in FPS games. War in the modern day is more about small and cohesive teams of troops instead of large armies and I think this game accurately reflects that.

If I had one thing to criticize about the Campaign it is that the subjects in this game are just too “real” and in many ways the developers are manipulating your emotions throughout the game. The idea of “family” is pounded hard in the game with the fact that no soldier in a team will be left behind. This is contradicted by a far off commander who only cares about the bigger picture and not about specific teams or what they do. They only care about the end result and not who is lost on the way. In some ways it is a powerful statement towards the actions of the military administration in the Pentagon from a very pro-military game. At the end of the game, chances are you will shed a tear or feel some kind of emotion as the story comes to a close. It’s a powerful and tough ending to take, but one that is all too real even today.

Onto the multiplayer side of things which was developed by DICE and uses the internally developed Frostbite engine. It is a stark difference in gameplay when compared to the Campaign section running on the Unreal engine and really made me wonder why DICE couldn’t share Frostbite with Danger Close and make this a more cohesive package. Obviously, if you’ve played recent DICE games like Battlefield: Bad Company 2 or Battlefield 1943 you will know what to expect from the multiplayer here. It is a smooth and enjoyable multiplayer experience, but really they are just adding new maps based in Afghanistan to a general gameplay blueprint that they’ve already used. There are only three classes available: Rifleman, Special Operations or Sniper. As you gain experience points you unlock new weapons for the class. The number of maps available at release is also disappointing, but I wonder if multiplayer was more of a “we have to have this in the game so let’s shoot for the bare minimum” versus a highly thought out affair.

In the end I think Medal of Honor is a good game in the area I mostly play games for: the single-player portion. Although the graphics aren’t as good as its competition, I feel it brings some excellent gun and sound assets to the field. The stories are pretty much a wash when comparing this and its competition. I don’t think you necessarily pick these games up for their story, but more for the overall gameplay experience. I actually hope this game sells well, however I think the 5 hour Campaign will make most just rent the game. That is probably the biggest reason the multiplayer component is there because once you are done with the story you probably won’t go back to it. EA has laid down the gauntlet. In a few weeks we’ll see how Treyarch/Activision responds with Call of Duty: Black Ops, a game set inside the Cold War and possibly up to modern day.

Score: 4 out of 5 CoGs


Loren says, “I think this is a really good and realistic military game based upon the recent past. I think the Campaign far outdoes the multiplayer section, but many will be turned off by the roughly 5 hours it takes to beat it. A rental for sure just to see how EA is attempting to go up against its competitor with a two pronged attack: this and Battlefield.”

*Note - Review based upon the 360 version of game

[Shjinta]

I haven't tried the game yet. Though, Ramin Djawadi did the score and I find it absolutely awesome. So I'd give the score 4 out 5.

[crazyD]

Originally Posted by AgtFox

“we have to have this in the game so let’s shoot for the bear minimum”

I believe you mean, "bare minimum".

Personally, I found the multiplayer content much more compelling than single. It's not amazing, but it does the job well enough, and it's gotten people at the LAN parties I go to to finally drop MW2. And dedicated servers = awesome.

Single player I found to be a bit by the numbers and boring, though I didn't get too far before a bug prevented me from proceeding.

[AgtFox]

Originally Posted by crazyD

I believe you mean, "bare minimum".

Personally, I found the multiplayer content much more compelling than single. It's not amazing, but it does the job well enough, and it's gotten people at the LAN parties I go to to finally drop MW2. And dedicated servers = awesome.

Single player I found to be a bit by the numbers and boring, though I didn't get too far before a bug prevented me from proceeding.

No, I meant "bear" j/k

Multiplayer is not as exciting as it was for me years ago when I was playing Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield 2 regularly. The fact is that the small number of maps and its relative sameness to Bad Company 2's multiplayer roughly 7 months later doesn't bring anything extra to the table so to speak.

[crazyD]

As someone who really dug BC2's multiplayer, the similarities are a plus to me, and the small number of new maps is refreshing after playing BC2's small number of maps to death. BC2 felt to me like Battlefield meets CoD, and MoH feels like BC2 meets CoD. My biggest complaint about the multiplayer is the lack of a killcam. That, and the PC version apparently isn't getting the free DLC.

[Inspector Fowler]

The multiplayer is a hugely mixed bag to me.

On one hand, there are some great ideas - for example: Getting scorechain actions based on score and not just kills is great and directly rewards team players - kill a couple enemies and take a control point? Good job, here's a mortar strike!

Also, their persistence after death is very nice. Nothing is worse than getting ready to use a killstreak reward in CoD only to be shot a fraction of a second before pulling the trigger. You can't continue earning score towards the next reward, of course, but you still get to drop those rockets or hand out more powerful ammo.

Speaking of that, splitting the rewards between offensive and defensive actions is great - a fixed number of points for handing out flak jackets or better ammo vs firing a mortar and hoping you hit somebody is kind of fun.

On the downside, though, I feel the maps suck - big time. Your spawn is visible to the enemy spawn on some maps, and a literal step anywhere means a shot to the head. Sure, one class comes with smoke - one smoke grenade. But the level design does take away some of the fun when you're just getting spawn raped over and over - from a guy who isn't even trying to be a spawn camper, he's just sitting in his spawn. It's not like he could even go further away.

And I also don't understand why this game doesn't actually sport a squad system like BC2. Call it a fireteam. In some of the gameplay modes you can "spawn on the front" but that is a sort of random event - you're tied to some teammates but I can't figure out which ones. So you choose to spawn on the battlefront (as opposed to spawning in your base) and instead you spawn with a sniper in the spawn, because he's part of an invisible squad the game pairs you with but doesn't tell you about.

Edit - Also - you'd think sniper rifles were the only ones issued to all combatants - if you are a sniper, you'll fucking love this game. If you don't like them so much, you may have some issues with how often (including standing in your spawn without moving) you are exposed to snipers.

All in all, it seems like some good ideas sort of thrown together. I really like the more realistic setting, a la BC2 - no perks granting super speed, mega knife reach (like that shit needs more power), super stealth, etc. Your unlocks are all pretty realistic - extra magazines, hollowpoint ammo, etc. It's fun - but Black Ops is a couple weeks away and I think we're gonna see some ghost towns after that...

[Wilkz07]

beat it, had fun on mp until the servers got laggy, traded it in. I did like the campaign even though it was short and will play the next game. now to wait for black ops.

[Badger]

I find myself agreeing with pretty much everything Inspector Fowler has said about the multiplayer. There are moments of just sheer frustration when you'll get killed the second you spawn, over and over again. Especially on one particular map where one team has practically no cover from snipers. The meager cover that team does have is near useless because, as you'll find out: you can shoot through just about everything. 4 ft thick concrete walls, mountainside rock formations- if someone saw you get behind cover, you're already dead.

That and the pace is very fast. Even though you move at a more realistic speed, most of the maps will put you in harms way around every second corner. It feels as fast and hectic as MW2 to me (but thankfully without teleporting knife-witches). They've done a great job of making the formula feel like their own, it's just that I wanted something slower paced and more tactical given the focus towards realism.

I spent a few hours in the multiplayer, and I found I like some game-types more than others; objective raid is a nicely slimmed down version of combat mission with only two objectives to take and rounds that last ~ 5 minutes, whereas combat mission itself becomes a nightmare for attackers when the defending snipers get dug in. The level progression is nice, but again too fast. I played it for one night and I'd almost unlocked veteran weapons for all 3 classes already.

So this game favours snipers and twitch-shooters. It's a shame because if DICE had followed the recipe a little more closely to the Battlefield series, this could have been a refreshingly tactical take on modern shooters instead of the rushed out MW2 clone it appears to be. I guess that's why I've gone back to BC2.

Oh, and I did really enjoy the singleplayer despite it being 4 hours long and pretty easy on the hardest difficulty. The time-trial mode seems like a cool addition.

[crazyD]

I don't mind snipers too much, since they made smoke so effective.

[Inspector Fowler]

Originally Posted by crazyD

I don't mind snipers too much, since they made smoke so effective.

This is absolutely true, but it makes the spawn-to-spawn sniping even more ridiculous. It is actually really fun to advance towards an objective, throwing down smoke to cover your advance, or even the wrong direction to draw fire. It's great, and more effective than in any game I can remember.

On the other hand, though, that just makes it worse when you spawn and instantly see a flash from the enemy spawn that is actually you getting shot.

Also - would two smoke grenades instead of one really be that ridiculous?

[JayK47]

Played the single player and enough of the multi. I have to say, I do not like the way a lot of these FPS games are going (COD and now this). I am literally being held by my hands and yet I still don't know what is going on half the time. Piss poor game design is the problem. They try so hard to make a battle drama and forget to let me loose and have fun. It is such a controlled game environment, it is no wonder I yearn for games like Fallout New Vegas. I always have at least one guy following me around telling me exactly what to do.

"Go silent"
"Go into the building on the right"
"Sneak up and kill the guy in the building"
"Blah blah blah"

Yes mom. Not my idea of fun. And the name of your teammates. One is actually called Mother. Makes perfect sense really, because you have to do as your Mother tells you. They spend so much time building up a dramatic story and coming up with lame NPCs they forget to make a shooter where I can have fun with shooting. Even on easy, I was getting smoked pretty quick if I turned the wrong corner. It is like a crappy puzzle. It takes trial and error to figure out how they want me to proceed through their precious fucking game.

It saddens me that COD is now the game to be. The older Medal of Honors actually let you loose in Nazi Germany and you could play without mother telling you how. Now we have a Modern Warfare wannabe much like Bad Company. How many COD games do we really need? COD saturates itself. We don't need copy cats. No really. Seriously. Not even a decent rental.