The *New* Medal of Honor thread

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

RavenSEAL

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2010
8,661
3
0
Sad sad sad day for EA....

Electronic Arts Slumps

Electronic Arts Inc. fell 6 percent to $16.61 for the biggest decline in the S&P 500. The second-largest video-game publisher released its “Medal of Honor” game today to disappointing early reviews, Doug Creutz, an analyst at Cowen & Co., said in a report.

EA’s Reboot Fails To Polish Tarnished Medal Of Honor Franchise
by Jeff Cork on October 12, 2010 at 08:21 AM 15,706 Views


EA took a chance with the latest installment of Medal of Honor, moving the series from its World War II origins to a contemporary setting. It’s no secret that the franchise has lost its way over the years, and it has the declining review scores to show for it. Those who pinned their hopes on the change in venue fixing the problems are likely to be disappointed by the results.

The single-player campaign isn’t bad, but it hardly feels inspired. If you’ve played any of the modern-day military shooters, you’ve experienced most of Medal of Honor’s set pieces – a helicopter-based rail shooter segment, a section where you paint targets for air support, and other levels where you and your bearded buddy sneak through camps as snipers. Medal of Honor’s campaign lacks the excitement that would help it stand tall against the considerable competition. Character animations are gimpy, weapons feel slightly underpowered, and the AI is downright suicidal. This works to your advantage when enemies show a complete disregard for cover, rolling out of safety to stake out firing positions in the open.

The story is standard fare, with players taking on a variety of raids and infiltration missions throughout Afghanistan. The narrative switches perspective several times, but since none of the characters are particularly memorable, it’s tough to care too much about what’s going on. The pacing bounces around a bit, too, with one nighttime ATV section in particular dragging on too long. (And don’t ask me why they chose two of the loudest vehicles imaginable for the nighttime raid, either.)

Admittedly, a lot of people won’t bother with the campaign. After all, the biggest draw for most military shooters is the multiplayer. Battlefield alums DICE took on the task for Medal of Honor, and while the experience is technically competent, it ultimately doesn’t have the same spark as the developer’s flagship franchise.

There are three classes in multiplayer – riflemen, Special Ops, and snipers. Each class levels up independently, with experience unlocking new gear. There aren’t any Modern Warfare-style perks, so you know that every player you face on the battlefield can take as many bullets as the next.

Combat Mission is the most ambitious of Medal of Honor’s multiplayer modes. Coalition forces must work through a series of five connected missions while the insurgents try to prevent them from succeeding. For instance, in the Mazar-I-Sharif Airfield level, the Coalition starts on the outskirts of a dilapidated airfield. Their ultimate goal is to download data from a laptop on the far end. To get there, the team must destroy a roadblock (allowing tanks to pass farther into the battlefield), blast through some hangar doors, secure an area with the help of a mounted rocket launcher, kill enemies around a downed helicopter, and then work toward the building containing the computer. This fast-paced mode is complemented well by the game’s generously short respawn times.

Sector Control is essentially Battlefield’s Conquest mode, with two sides fighting to control three objectives. In Objective Raid, Coalition forces have to defend a pair of objectives from enemy sabotage.

As players rack up score chains – points earned racking up kills, meeting objectives, and supporting your team – they’re rewarded with offensive and defensive bonuses. You can, for example, choose to rain fire on the opposing team by calling in a mortar strike, or put a UAV online to temporarily display the enemy locations on your radar. Better still, you don’t lose this bonus ability when you die – though your score chain will be reset.

The game’s eight maps are diverse, drawing inspiration from pivotal moments in the single-player campaign. Mazar-I-Sharif provides plenty of hiding spots, as players sprint from hollowed airplane shell to hangar and back. Snipers will undoubtedly fall in love with some of the game’s more urban settings, including Diwagal Camp, which features insurgent emplacements in caves perched above the village’s mud huts.

The Shahikhot Mountains map unfortunately highlights a larger problem with the game’s balance. Defenders are holed up in a small camp tucked into a snowy mountaintop. With only a few paths into that camp – most of which are easily monitored by snipers – attacking quickly becomes futile. After a few waves of spawns are neatly killed, defenders rack up the killstreaks and can then use the bonuses to ensure that the momentum doesn’t shift. Once a team has gained the upper hand, it’s quite difficult to stage a comeback when the enemy team can blast chokepoints with rocket barrages. Teams could work the score chain system to their advantage on offense as well, unleashing a coordinated hoard of rockets and mortars.

The obvious solution for comebacks is to stop dying, but the spawn system doesn’t do players any favors. If you’re on the insurgent team, you’ll spawn in predetermined points. Coalition players who spawn on teammates don’t get to specify which member they want. The AI is supposed to invisibly link players into predetermined squads and use that to choose optimal positioning, but it often plopped me down right into an enemy’s sights. This works both ways. I’d be in the middle of blasting someone apart when one of his teammates would pop up beside him out of thin air. It’s easy to take advantage of their temporary confusion and make it a two-fer, but those kills feel hollow.

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.
 

SEAL62505

Golden Member
Oct 8, 2000
1,764
1
81
Picked it up for PS3 today. Multiplayer isn't bad, but it isn't good either. I need to give it further time...
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
I'm generally enjoying the singleplayer, about two hours in. It is maddeningly linear in that in many instances the game seems to want you to shoot the bad guys in a particular order, but other than that I find it enjoyable. It feels more authentic than many similar games in terms of its setting and the missions (as opposed to, say, MW2, which was really absurdly over the top), and there's an interesting variety of things to do, from CQB to sniping to ID'ing targets for air support. I haven't tried the multiplayer but so far I don't feel too bad about investing $40 in it.
 

American Gunner

Platinum Member
Aug 26, 2010
2,399
0
71
Played all day yesterday. I loved the single player and didn't have any issues with the online. No lag, no connections issues. Ran into one map with snipers going crazy. In the 2 hours I played online, I was only killed three times by support actions (killstreaks) instead of 3-4 times a game like MW2.
 

bucwylde23

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2005
4,180
0
71
So I played a couple hours of the campaign yesterday. Single player was a lot of fun for me. My only complaint is although it had some really fun missions I feel like they were way too short. For example while gunning from the chopper or sniping, it was over really fast. If they would have stretched out those missions a bit longer it would have helped the game immensely.

It's heavily scripted, and at times your team runs so far ahead very quickly that you kind of lose sight of what exactly is going on.

The "press X to get ammo" when near a teammate is annoying as hell.

I did notice some weird glitches here and there but nothing showstopping. One annoying thing was when I took cover behind a blown up tank. When I tried to shoot between the tank's main gun and the bottom portion of the tank, I couldn't. I guess the graphic of the tank is one big block that you can't shoot through.

Also, I read in some reviews where the enemy AI is retarded and just sits in a corner and you can walk up to them and knife them. I saw the exact same thing, though it only happened a few times.

Overall so far I really like the game, the missions are pretty diverse throughout somewhat different settings. The game is not nearly as polished as MW2 but for what it is, it's a lot of fun. The "hard" setting is not hard at all. In fact it should be the "normal" setting. I haven't tried normal or easy yet but I have to imagine they are way too easy.

That's all my thoughts for now, will post more if I remember anything. I'll probably try out some multiplayer tonight and see how that goes.
 

Tek_Ed

Member
Sep 22, 2010
59
0
0
Not convinced by anything I have heard that this game is worth the money yet. I am gonna wait and get COD:BO.

Shame, as I had kind of hoped MOH would be the game to take me away from the COD series.

I did notice some weird glitches here and there but nothing showstopping. One annoying thing was when I took cover behind a blown up tank. When I tried to shoot between the tank's main gun and the bottom portion of the tank, I couldn't. I guess the graphic of the tank is one big block that you can't shoot through.

Thats just pants. How can a major game developer justify not properly finishing the game environment? Sounds like EA have totally failed to compete with the other big gun FPS, despite all the hype.
 

cyphilis

Senior member
May 7, 2008
454
0
0
This is on Yahoo.com front page.... more bad press for this game

Medal of Honor: No Call of Duty, critics say
by Mike Smith

EA’s storied franchise Medal of Honor is a familiar name to old-school shooter fans, but in recent years it’s taken a backseat to the massive success of Activision’s Call of Duty games. This week, however, it storms back into action for the first time in three years -- and it’s facing hot competition from the next Call of Duty game, Black Ops, due in about a month.

Though Medal of Honor is releasing today, it’s been making headlines for several months. EA’s decision to allow gamers to play as the Taliban in multiplayer matches proved a lightning rod for controversy. Ultimately, the game found itself banned from sale on US military bases, and facing harsh criticism from the British government.

But the Taliban are gone -- or, to be more precise, they were renamed “Opposing Force” in a widely criticized decision. So now that that's settled, does Medal of Honor achieve its goals of producing a tribute to American special forces troops, or is it a poor second to the all-conquering Call of Duty series?

Broadly, the consensus is the latter. As of the time of writing, review aggregation site Metacritic puts the game’s various versions around the 75% mark, a very far cry from last year’s Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, which wound up averaging in the mid-90s. Combine that with a couple of standout low marks from respected outlets Giant Bomb and IGN -- both of whom give it a disappointing 6/10 -- and it’s clear EA has wound up off-target.

Still, there’s significant praise from some quarters. Eurogamer was impressed by its multiplayer balance, its tight class system, its weapon customization (“complex and rewarding”), and its level playing field for pros and novices alike.

Over in the game’s solo campaign -- a different game from the multiplayer, really, with its own graphics engine and even a separate developer -- things aren’t so strong. Harking back to the game’s Taliban controversy, Eurogamer says the game “does little to advance the theory that videogames are responsible enough to tell stories within sensitive contexts ...a shame it lacks the creative bravery to match the courage of the heroes it so reveres.”

“Medal of Honor is one of the bigger disappointments of 2010,” says IGN. With “cliched shooting-gallery levels,” “no real investment” in characters, and an interface that “seems to deliberately lead you in the wrong direction,” says Arthur Gies, “Medal of Honor walks into a quagmire it never really escapes from.”

Again, though, its multiplayer comes in for qualified praise: it’s “an interesting gray area between the twitchy shooting of Modern Warfare and the more strategic use of terrain and positioning of Bad Company 2.” The maps are boring, however, says Gies, who expects the game to lack the remarkable staying power of its competition.

Several critics also raised concerns over technical issues: IGN called it “one of the most unstable console releases [they’ve] seen so far this year,” citing bugs with graphics, sound, and gameplay progression. Even Gaming Trend, despite an overall overall positive tone, wonders if competition from a certain other game might have lead to a rushed release. Our advice: wait until November, when we’ll see how the Call of Duty half of this head-to-head plays out.

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/plugged-in/medal-of-honor-no-call-of-duty-critics-say/1413536
 

American Gunner

Platinum Member
Aug 26, 2010
2,399
0
71
Again, the reviews are killing it, but a lot of the people playing it are enjoying it. If you are on the fence, or planned on getting CoD, then you should probably wait because this game isn't CoD. I enjoyed the story, I thought that it told a good story and had some fun things to do. Sure there weren't any over the top moments like other shooters, but everything in the game was something that you could see happening in real life. I am sure that the numbers will start to fall off when CoD comes around, but it won't be dead by any means.
 

American Gunner

Platinum Member
Aug 26, 2010
2,399
0
71
Ok, so I have been one of the bigger supporters of this game here, and I have to say, I was wrong. Every mode has turned into a sniper's paradise. I even spawned in the exact same location and didn't even get to move before dying. If you get a chance to rent this for the story, do it. The story was great, but man the online has turned sour pretty quick. Not to mention that there is only 30,000 people playing it.
 

RavenSEAL

Diamond Member
Jan 4, 2010
8,661
3
0
Pretty much...
SP=9/10
MP=5/10

Thats what pretty much every review site is saying...Which turns out to around a 7/10...which is what it has @ metacritic.
 

American Gunner

Platinum Member
Aug 26, 2010
2,399
0
71
Reviews had nothing to do with me, it was just the online was so terrible. Now I will have to just play Halo.
 

bucwylde23

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2005
4,180
0
71
Reviews had nothing to do with me, it was just the online was so terrible. Now I will have to just play Halo.

Wow, I haven't played the online yet. Might get to it if i can break away from halo, but if I don't like it I'll just trade it in to Amazon. It's currently getting 24 bucks right now.
 

gorcorps

aka Brandon
Jul 18, 2004
30,739
454
126
Wow, I haven't played the online yet. Might get to it if i can break away from halo, but if I don't like it I'll just trade it in to Amazon. It's currently getting 24 bucks right now.

You can easily get at least $40 out of it... it's brand new.
 

American Gunner

Platinum Member
Aug 26, 2010
2,399
0
71
Well, play online without using the code. My friend rented it and didn't have a code and played a couple games.
 
Oct 19, 2000
17,860
4
81
Damn, why does a game have to have a 9 out of 10 for it to be considered good? If it's averaging a 7 out of 10, how is that considered "terrible" or "horrible"? The gaming community needs to get away from that shit, it's stupid. If a game gets a 7 out of 10, then it must be pretty good. Not the best ever, but pretty good.
 

American Gunner

Platinum Member
Aug 26, 2010
2,399
0
71
7 out of 10 is above average. It's not terrible, the story was good IMO, but the online is a spawn kill party. And the more and more I play it, the more people do it. I guess once people learned the maps and were to sit to spawn camp, it has gotten worse.
 

Beev

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2006
7,775
0
0
7 out of 10 has become industry standard for average, which I hate. It's like they use a school grading system (which are fucking stupid too). Basically, 50% is, in essence, a zero, so a 7 out of 10 is more like a 3 out of 5, which is easier to call average.

The whole system is dumb, but it is what it is, and a 70% is average or below. When I see a game (that I don't care about or want) sitting at 70 on metacritic I just think "what a terrible game that must be."
 

tdawg

Platinum Member
May 18, 2001
2,215
6
81
Ok, so I have been one of the bigger supporters of this game here, and I have to say, I was wrong. Every mode has turned into a sniper's paradise. I even spawned in the exact same location and didn't even get to move before dying. If you get a chance to rent this for the story, do it. The story was great, but man the online has turned sour pretty quick. Not to mention that there is only 30,000 people playing it.

Poor spawn logic should be fixable in a patch, right? Hopefully they get around to it.
 

R Nilla

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2006
3,835
1
0
Unfortunately this system is further reinforced by the industry because bonuses and incentives are often based around the Metacritic aggregate. Anything under the mid- to low- 80s might as well be a failure. Not everyone looks at it this way but it is certainly a growing trend.

As I'm sure everyone else can confess, I've played plenty of crappy games that I enjoyed a lot more than highly rated and polished games that I found to be 'Meh.' One (or many) reviewer's experience will not necessarily be indicative of your own.


All that said, however, from what I have seen this game does not look interesting to me, especially the multiplayer which has always seemed kind of janky.
 
Last edited: