Forums > Submission Feedback > EmP's Medal of Honor review

Good review. I find it increasingly distressing that companies seemingly want to emphasize multiplayer, especially online multiplayer, more than anything else nowadays. In a lot of cases, this isn't a problem because the single player is still competent, so I'd just feel like I was missing a lot without the multiplayer rather than not getting any enjoyment out of the game for lacking it. But even so, I really agree that both aspects should be treated equally so as to best appeal to everyone. I know that in twenty years or so from now when I finally get a next-gen system, I still probably won't use the internet as a focus for my enjoyment in videogames. I like to have options.

[Eating EmP's brain] probably isn't a good idea. I mean... He's British, which means his brain's wired for PAL and your eyes are NTSC. - Will

:) ..DICE kind of made COD look silly a long time ago with Battlefield :p.. and was only hired (or "chosen", as some EA rep put it) to do the multiplayer for Medal of Honor. ..actually I think DICE folks have mentioned that the single-player game (developed by EA's LA studio.. who I don't know anything about..) uses a modified Unreal 3 engine. While the multiplayer portion runs on DICE's Frostbite engine (the same as the one used in Bad Company 2 - where they, btw, dedicate the entire single player campaign to make fun of COD).

But other than that slip, good review. I'm not the right person to say so, because everything I write is always too long - but I'm looking for some more air in some of the paragraphs.

But yeah.. you homed in on the game's strengths and problems, and tore the "epic war" trope a new one. 9/10 :p

Not sure how to make a sig? While logged into your account, you can edit it and your other public and private information from the Settings page.

I was kind of surprised when I read this, because your opinion is exactly the opposite of mine. I would say that the single-player was actually pretty competently handled, and that the multiplayer was what didn't live up to its end of the bargain. (In fact, I did say that, but I'm not allowed to say where.) I haven't played much of Black Ops' campaign yet, but I'm not impressed with it so far and I'll be amused if I wind up liking Medal of Honor's campaign more.

Still, very good review. I especially liked the last line of the first paragraph.

You exist because we allow it. And you will end because we demand it.

wolfqueen001:

I'm as pedantic about grammar as the next person, but I think you mis-corrected something there.

unlocks; your subject is "progressing", which is singular.

The sentence actually said 'will unlock.' I think changing it to 'will unlocks' makes it worse, not better. :p

'There would be tears and there would be strange laughter. Fierce births and deaths beneath umbrageous ceilings. And dreams, and violence, and disenchantment.'

haha. Oops. So it did. My head hurts today.

In any case, it doesn't matter. He corrected it my way and just took out "will". I personally think it sounds better that way anyhow.

[Eating EmP's brain] probably isn't a good idea. I mean... He's British, which means his brain's wired for PAL and your eyes are NTSC. - Will

Great review Gary--even if you're completely wrong. This thing is well written and persuasive: you had me believing everything you said... almost.

Oddly enough, my view of the game is the exact opposite. The single player is a lot of fun and benefits from a sweet graphic style and lots of 'authentic' mumbo jumbo and tough guy jargon and just a high cool factor... but the multiplayer plods along and lacks the pace and punch I enjoyed with Modern Warfare 2.

In other news, Black Ops does nothing for me. It's getting great reviews though... I'm not sure what game these pros are playing.

I don't have to prove I'm refined - that's what makes me refined!

You're all mad. The single player is rubbish, but I've abandoned Reach to rack up more hours in the multiplayer.

EDIT: I'll expand slightly: the single player offers not one stand out moments. I can remember stand out moments from FPS' I played on the PSX and early era PC, but MoH offers nothing. It's all a blur of seen-before/seen-better. You all disapoint me!

I wonder if I'm the only one.

Thanks for reading and taking the time to share your thoughts.

and for catching the odd typo, some of you

For us. For them. For you.

Here's the only wise thing you've said today, Emp:

I've abandoned Reach

I don't have to prove I'm refined - that's what makes me refined!

Review was written: done, and on to the next one.

I was getting too good at Reach, anyway.

For us. For them. For you.

I was getting too good at Reach, anyway.

Your .87 K/D makes us quiver with fear.

From what I've played of Black Ops' campaign so far (and I am chugging through it ever so slowly), Medal of Honor easily has it beat. Which is funny, because I figured it would definitely be the other way around. I didn't love MoH's campaign and I think Infinity Ward could crush either of these games, but I'd honestly say EA won that particular battle this year, unless the Black Ops campaign really picks up, and fast.

Still, MoH's multiplayer is a disaster, so it's ultimately kinda irrelevant, I guess.

You exist because we allow it. And you will end because we demand it.

The Black Ops campaign does improve as you hit the second half (after the Vietnam stage), definitely. However, it's fairly rough around the edges all around. I haven't played Medal of Honor, but there are some definite points where Call of Duty could have improved that I hope to address in my impending review. I want to spend some time with multi-player before I actually review it, naturally.

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy on reality

"What if everything you see is more than what you see--the person next to you is a warrior and the space that appears empty is a secret door to another world? What if something appears that shouldn't? You either dismiss it, or you accept that there is much more to the world than you think. Perhaps it really is a doorway, and if you choose to go inside, you'll find many unexpected things." - Shigeru Miyamoto on secret doors to another world2

Your .87 K/D makes us quiver with fear.

That's more reflective of the fact I was The worst Reach Player in the world when I first started. And, man, I was awful.

I clawed myself up to slightly above avarage before the never-ending games of Infection wore me down.

(MoH online still rocks. I shot a Taliban guy in the face last night with my sniper rifle from across the stage as a demo charge threw him fifty feet in the air. Though my K/D ratio on that is shockingly poor and makes my Reach one look like a world beater.)

For us. For them. For you.

Have you played Reach at all recently? Because Infection has its own playlist now. It's great because now I don't have to play it.

You exist because we allow it. And you will end because we demand it.

I've not. I was offline for a couple of weeks, so played nothing but single player stuff, then, when I got online, I wanted to get MoH out of the way.

That's pretty good news. Maybe I'll wander back in.

For us. For them. For you.

Yeah, it was just lovely when I'd go to play an online match and everyone would vote everything down until there was an Infection map to play. Sometimes (most of the time) all I want is a little deathmatch!

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy on reality

"What if everything you see is more than what you see--the person next to you is a warrior and the space that appears empty is a secret door to another world? What if something appears that shouldn't? You either dismiss it, or you accept that there is much more to the world than you think. Perhaps it really is a doorway, and if you choose to go inside, you'll find many unexpected things." - Shigeru Miyamoto on secret doors to another world2

Ok, time to actually leave my thoughts on the review. It's generally well written and I agree with most of the points raised about the single player campaign, but the whole thing is a bit one-sided. It does mention that not every aspect of the sub-par solo game is a waste of time, but it doesn't make any similar attempt at balance in its rabid adoration of the online component. There is no mention of the hideous spawning system (leading to many matches being a race to see which team can spawn-camp fastest), for instance. I'm not saying the review should agree with my opinions; I'm saying that just as the campaign has a few redeeming features, the multiplayer has distinct flaws that, even if you don't consider them cripplingly bad, really need to be mentioned.

'There would be tears and there would be strange laughter. Fierce births and deaths beneath umbrageous ceilings. And dreams, and violence, and disenchantment.'

Before anything else, thanks for your feedback.

The reason I didn't complain about spawning is because I've not had any of the problems you've had. My big multiplayer gripe at the moment tends to be that people are annoyingly good at sniping, but I'm not going to punish the title because other players are better than I. I'll just bitch about it loudly.

The only time I've ever found spawn camping a problem is when I've started sprinting recklessly the second I respawn into the open to either reach an attack/defend point of to try and reach the git who just shot me. On Sector capture, it spawns you in your controlled sector; in combat missions, it either spawns you behind your defensive objective or on your furthest teammate when attacking (another reason to hate bastard snipers who stay half a mile behind the battle).

I get from this topic my opinion on the game is hardly the popular consensus -- baffled by I am by any feeling other than complete indifference towards the single player mode -- but I stand by my praise of the multiplayer.

For us. For them. For you.

My big multiplayer gripe at the moment tends to be that people are annoyingly good at sniping, but I'm not going to punish the title because other players are better than I.

Well, people are annoyingly good at sniping in any online FPS. It comes with the territory. My problem, though, was that the map design was so visually busy that camping was made incredibly easy, since the fastest way to get spotted is if you're actually moving around looking for kills. It felt to me like the maps were designed specifically with camping in mind.

(Sorry that this turned into what it did. This is a good review.)

You exist because we allow it. And you will end because we demand it.

I love the maps that almost encourage camping. It takes a few attempts, but you can get behind them on go on a huge killing spree. That's the only reason the shotgun exists.

Or, if I want to anti-snipe, the main spots people camp at are used in abundence. So I know if I zero in on one of them, there's a high chance someone will be sitting there.

For us. For them. For you.

That's fair enough, EmP, and I'm certainly not contradicting your opinion. If you haven't perceived the same problems that I have you can hardly be expected to comment on them. I assumed it would be impossible for anyone to not experience the fish-in-a-barrel situation that results from spawn points that funnel players along one (occasionally two) narrow channel. But evidently not everyone has found that to be the case. And that's fair enough.

Other than that semi-retracted criticism regarding description of the multiplayer, I found the review was generally good. I think you covered the pros and cons of the campaign well enough, though this is probably aided by the similarity in our opinions. The main thing that troubled me about the campaign was its mediocrity, and I think that's something you conveyed well.

Clearly a number of people disagree, but a review is inevitably an expression of opinion.

'There would be tears and there would be strange laughter. Fierce births and deaths beneath umbrageous ceilings. And dreams, and violence, and disenchantment.'

Suskie makes a good point... this is probably why I don't like the multiplayer. I'm seriously anti-camping and as such, I don't like those sprawling, busy maps where you poke your head out and lose it. Doesn't help that there's no killcam as far as I know.

I don't have to prove I'm refined - that's what makes me refined!

I'm seriously anti-camping too, and I found there was too much of it in Medal of Honor. Most online FPSs suffer from camping to some extent, but MoH was the worst I've ever played.

Strangely, though, I like not having a killcam. I don't like having to run the length of the map as soon as you've made a kill just so the recent victim won't get revenge. It's one of the things I like about Battlefield 1943. Maybe I should have mentioned that in my review. (pimp, pimp)

'There would be tears and there would be strange laughter. Fierce births and deaths beneath umbrageous ceilings. And dreams, and violence, and disenchantment.'

Fear of revenge is what keeps people on their toes and reluctant to camp!

I don't have to prove I'm refined - that's what makes me refined!

True enough, but I'm not a camper and it annoys me that I have to immediately change direction and run away as fast as possible. I can't continue on my way to wherever I was going. Bah.

'There would be tears and there would be strange laughter. Fierce births and deaths beneath umbrageous ceilings. And dreams, and violence, and disenchantment.'