Summary: I've been playing FPS since the days of Doom. I've played my fair share of bad games (or course it is all opinion) and my fair share of good ones (my favorite is still Rogue Spear). MOH not horrible game, but it tries to be like too much like MWF2 but lacks the "tension" in the SP. These games are like playing a movie, which is cool, but it has to be done right. MOH seems to fall short with respect to that. Character dev, story line, all that is not that great.
Really fun, polished gameplay, but amazingly short campaign
Amazon Customer, Amazon
4 January 2011
Summary: I'm a relatively casual gamer who's a big fan of the single player campaigns in modern combat FPS games like the Call of Duty and Medal of Honor series. I've been playing them since they were WWII shooters, and I really enjoyed the first Modern Warfare. When Medal of Honor went on sale on Steam, I quickly picked up and installed it. Three hours later, I was done.
Summary: I tend not to play video games online. I enjoy the single player aspect of games like this, thinking of it more as a movie I get to take part in than as an "e-sport" or social activity. As such, my review only applies to the single player portion of this game, and may be of little or no interest to some readers. I really enjoyed this game. The game play and the story were fantastic.
Summary: I am an avid PC gamer, although started slow, it was not till the release of Call of Duty in 2003 did i really got into gaming. Many people have said that the campaign for this game was short (4-5 hours) i don't mind this because nowadays, this is the standard length for a FPS game. A lot of attention have been pt into multilayer now. But focusing on the single player: Graphics: Although not stunning, it is very nice.
Summary: This game wasn't what I'd hoped it be. Nonetheless, I think it was exactly what EA wanted it to be....a realistic depiction of life as a special operator in the middle east. It played perfectly on the highest possible settings, and I had no lag or graphics issues. I also did not encounter any bugs. There is one annoying aspect to the single player game, which is the need to be in a specific spot in order to trigger the next action sequence.
Summary: Let me begin by saying that overall, the game was "not bad." However, that also means that it was no where near great for me. The only drawback to this game, and it's a huge one, is that Medal of Honor is extremely short for the money I paid for it. Normally, I wait for games to come down in price, but there are those few I purchase immediately (and pay full price) because I'm anticipating it that much. Medal of Honor was one of those games.
Half one game plus half another game equals...half a game...?
Jesse Ikawa, Amazon
26 October 2010
Summary: I've been playing army shooters since Battlefield 1942 and Call of Duty 1. I've always been convinced that the Battlefield franchise were masters of immersive war-like multi-player while the Call of DUty franchise has been experts of intense, cinematic singe-player campaigns (where this sudden flux of popularity for a scrapped together crap multi-player variant came from, I do not know). Here is Medal of Honor, an attempt to combine both.
Summary: For some reason I pre-ordered this title, even though it was a hefty $60. I get it and finish the single person game in under 4 hours!?!?! I should have waited for the reviews. This one fact of being a really short game would have made me wait until the price really dropped before I purchased.
Summary: First off, this game is fun... but there's several things that keep me from even giving it 4 let alone 5 stars: - Many times the NPC characters fail to move to the next objective, which keeps you from advancing. Multiple times I had to resort to lame tactics like: --- Shooting the NPC --- Running around the NPC helplessly --- Giving up and reloading from the last checkpoint -Secondly, the graphics in this game are nowhere near that of Modern Warfare 2.