lost
10-21-2010, 11:47 AM
<table width="100%" style="border:1px solid red"><tr><td>Medal of Honor (360)
Also available on: PS3, PC
Developed by: Danger Close (http://www.ea.com)
Published by: EA (http://www.ea.com)
You pay: $59.99</td><td align="right"><img style="border:1px solid red;" src="http://evavhost.com/i/press/lost_head.jpg"></td></tr><tr><td>Release Date: Oct. 12, 2010 NA, Oct. 15th 2010 EU</td><td align=right>Martin 'lost' Perry</td></tr></table>
Alpha Bravo, we have a doppelgänger.
I was absolutely behind EA's decision to move the Medal of Honor franchise into the modern day, and not just because I dislike World War II games. To me, it made sense that a franchise which has dealt with that era across so many theatres of war - from Normandy to the Pacific, from Airborne divisions to resistance movements – make a thematic change in order to keep things fresh. Of course, I had absolutely no doubt that the move was a direct retaliation to the massive, soaring success of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. Still, given that I enjoy that franchise, I was willing to see it emulated in some capacity.
Unfortunately, this end product doesn't really deliver on the expectations I had set out for it. While it's a generally enjoyable title, it fails to stake a claim within the crowded first-person shooter market, and instead comes off as a rushed budget title. The primary concern is just how closely its premise matches that of the Modern Warfare series. Sure, we all enjoy using modern weapons and fighting in the war zones of the day, but EA seem to have forgotten to include the diversity that makes the Call of Duty series, whether it be a modern or period entry into the series, so exciting. As part elite Tier 1 units, and an everyday soldier, you'll play three converging parts of the same story. Sounding familiar? Well, each of those soldiers will have different experiences but all see action within Afghanistan. There are vehicle sections, a poor sniping section and some covert operations – but they all happen in Afghanistan.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y242/LostGames/moh1.jpg
There's a very good reason that Afghanistan has been such a bitch to conquer. If we use my simplified understanding to demonstrate this situation; Afghanistan is a rugged, unforgiving cunt of a country. It's harsh rock faces, cold mountains and brutal deserts offer challenge to the modern solider but, crucially for this game, the offer little in the way of excitement for the eager gamer. Taking the game on its own merits, forgetting its place as a competitor to Activision's cash-cow, the setting allows for little in terms of spectacle. Developers have boasted about the accurate nature of their level, how well they match up with satellite photography, and in the same videos they have lamented how little the everyday gamer is likely to appreciate this. Perhaps that should have told them something, perhaps you make your game locales exciting places to visit and explore, rather than bland recreations of a hellish, desolate landscape.
This poor choice of location, and the subsequently poor level design, leaves gamers with the reasonably well functioning cover-based shooting to enjoy. With twitch controls, a decent selection of weaponry and a smart crouching system that allows you to dynamically slide into cover, everything seems to be going well in this department. However, while the player might confidently switch from spot to spot picking off enemies, those enemies will demonstrate a complete lack of cunning in retort. You know the AI in a game is poor when you can walk up to an enemy, without flanking, and stab him between the shoulder blades without so much as hearing an angry scream. My 'stab them in the back' strategy worked well throughout the game, provided I kept my head down, as the dumb enemies would just look the other way while I strolled up to them with deadly intent. This lack of awareness, and their ineffective combat strategy, means that firefights are really just like shooting a few fish in a really big barrel. Sure, it might be tricky to point your gun to the right spot, but it's inevitable that you'll be having bullet-ridden haddock for dinner.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y242/LostGames/moh2.jpg
This criticism really only equates to the reasons that I don't think Medal of Honor is the great game it could have been. While a little bland, and lacking the blockbuster excitement of its competitors, it is still a reasonably enjoyable game. Provided you don't have something more exciting waiting in your pile, Medal of Honor's campaign will keep you entertained for roughly 4 hours, with a pleasing mix of shooting, on-rails shooting and driving. Unsurprisingly, the shortness of the campaign means I can only ever recommend that you rent the game. Pleasingly though, it's story, although slightly incoherent, plays out at a considerable pace, while you hurtle from one dusty part of Afghanistan to a slightly less dusty part of Afghanistan. The cover is all well placed, and the game rarely frustrates. I had to restart a mission on one occasion, due to the single game-breaking glitch I encountered (although I hear others have experienced far more), and didn't feel at all dragged down by having to do so. I just plodded through, with a slight smile on my face while I wondered what Call of Duty: Black Ops was going to be like.
Surely though, EA's first-person shooter powerhouse, DICE, can come to the rescue with a compelling multiplayer experience. Nope. You can almost feel the resentment at having to take their brilliant Battlefield online experience, and having to smash it with a large hammer to make it look and feel like Call of Duty. Of course, why wouldn't they resent this? Unfortunately for the player, however, this leaves them with an experience which isn't nearly as good as either game. The classes are fine, but the lack of a dedicated medic or engineer type leads to them being nothing more than a quick means to adjust your load-out on each spawn. The maps are tolerable, but lack any sparkle or ingenuity. Medal of Honor's multiplayer is left looking like the girl at the prom with a hand-me-down dress. The bizarre move to have the single and multiplayer parts of the game run under different engines shows just how fractured and rushed this game's development has been. Nobody, unless they were out of their cash hungry minds, would do a cross-engine game. I don't know for a fact, but I'm willing to put my reputation on the line to say that no classic, or even great game, has ever come out of such an approach.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y242/LostGames/moh3.jpg
The bland theme continues into the visuals, which are washed-out and jaggy in the single-player, while rushed but smoother on the multiplayer side. Audio is fine but the voice acting is just as forgettable as the characters you encounter. At several points in the game I got confused which call-sign corresponded to which disinterested face within my unit. The game may well have already sold over a million copies, but it has done it thanks to the popularity of its concept rather than the quality of the game. I imagine this was EA's primary objective with the title, but their spineless attempt to copy a competitor has fallen flat creatively. Even Treyarch, as oft derided as they are, have the strength of conviction to try something new in the face of overwhelming sales pressure and, unless you want to rent, I suggest that you wait until their game comes out to get your fix of first-person warfare. Medal of Honor is a tolerable failure.
Score: 2.5 out of 5
http://evavhost.com/public/25.gif
The Good Functions perfectly well for the most part, the controls are familiar and the cover sliding move is cool. The firefights, while unchanging and bland, don’t frustrate either.
The online servers are active, and offers many of the features you expect.
The Bad The whole thing is just so devoid of shock and awe. Boring location, dull gameplay and simple, fairly poor level design.
Visually it really fails to compete - presentation had evidently been rushed.
Dumb-fuck AI fails to challenge, rarely even managing to fight effectively.
The multiplayer is a jack of all trades, a master of none.
The Ugly Game-breaking bugs are never welcome.
Also available on: PS3, PC
Developed by: Danger Close (http://www.ea.com)
Published by: EA (http://www.ea.com)
You pay: $59.99</td><td align="right"><img style="border:1px solid red;" src="http://evavhost.com/i/press/lost_head.jpg"></td></tr><tr><td>Release Date: Oct. 12, 2010 NA, Oct. 15th 2010 EU</td><td align=right>Martin 'lost' Perry</td></tr></table>
Alpha Bravo, we have a doppelgänger.
I was absolutely behind EA's decision to move the Medal of Honor franchise into the modern day, and not just because I dislike World War II games. To me, it made sense that a franchise which has dealt with that era across so many theatres of war - from Normandy to the Pacific, from Airborne divisions to resistance movements – make a thematic change in order to keep things fresh. Of course, I had absolutely no doubt that the move was a direct retaliation to the massive, soaring success of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. Still, given that I enjoy that franchise, I was willing to see it emulated in some capacity.
Unfortunately, this end product doesn't really deliver on the expectations I had set out for it. While it's a generally enjoyable title, it fails to stake a claim within the crowded first-person shooter market, and instead comes off as a rushed budget title. The primary concern is just how closely its premise matches that of the Modern Warfare series. Sure, we all enjoy using modern weapons and fighting in the war zones of the day, but EA seem to have forgotten to include the diversity that makes the Call of Duty series, whether it be a modern or period entry into the series, so exciting. As part elite Tier 1 units, and an everyday soldier, you'll play three converging parts of the same story. Sounding familiar? Well, each of those soldiers will have different experiences but all see action within Afghanistan. There are vehicle sections, a poor sniping section and some covert operations – but they all happen in Afghanistan.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y242/LostGames/moh1.jpg
There's a very good reason that Afghanistan has been such a bitch to conquer. If we use my simplified understanding to demonstrate this situation; Afghanistan is a rugged, unforgiving cunt of a country. It's harsh rock faces, cold mountains and brutal deserts offer challenge to the modern solider but, crucially for this game, the offer little in the way of excitement for the eager gamer. Taking the game on its own merits, forgetting its place as a competitor to Activision's cash-cow, the setting allows for little in terms of spectacle. Developers have boasted about the accurate nature of their level, how well they match up with satellite photography, and in the same videos they have lamented how little the everyday gamer is likely to appreciate this. Perhaps that should have told them something, perhaps you make your game locales exciting places to visit and explore, rather than bland recreations of a hellish, desolate landscape.
This poor choice of location, and the subsequently poor level design, leaves gamers with the reasonably well functioning cover-based shooting to enjoy. With twitch controls, a decent selection of weaponry and a smart crouching system that allows you to dynamically slide into cover, everything seems to be going well in this department. However, while the player might confidently switch from spot to spot picking off enemies, those enemies will demonstrate a complete lack of cunning in retort. You know the AI in a game is poor when you can walk up to an enemy, without flanking, and stab him between the shoulder blades without so much as hearing an angry scream. My 'stab them in the back' strategy worked well throughout the game, provided I kept my head down, as the dumb enemies would just look the other way while I strolled up to them with deadly intent. This lack of awareness, and their ineffective combat strategy, means that firefights are really just like shooting a few fish in a really big barrel. Sure, it might be tricky to point your gun to the right spot, but it's inevitable that you'll be having bullet-ridden haddock for dinner.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y242/LostGames/moh2.jpg
This criticism really only equates to the reasons that I don't think Medal of Honor is the great game it could have been. While a little bland, and lacking the blockbuster excitement of its competitors, it is still a reasonably enjoyable game. Provided you don't have something more exciting waiting in your pile, Medal of Honor's campaign will keep you entertained for roughly 4 hours, with a pleasing mix of shooting, on-rails shooting and driving. Unsurprisingly, the shortness of the campaign means I can only ever recommend that you rent the game. Pleasingly though, it's story, although slightly incoherent, plays out at a considerable pace, while you hurtle from one dusty part of Afghanistan to a slightly less dusty part of Afghanistan. The cover is all well placed, and the game rarely frustrates. I had to restart a mission on one occasion, due to the single game-breaking glitch I encountered (although I hear others have experienced far more), and didn't feel at all dragged down by having to do so. I just plodded through, with a slight smile on my face while I wondered what Call of Duty: Black Ops was going to be like.
Surely though, EA's first-person shooter powerhouse, DICE, can come to the rescue with a compelling multiplayer experience. Nope. You can almost feel the resentment at having to take their brilliant Battlefield online experience, and having to smash it with a large hammer to make it look and feel like Call of Duty. Of course, why wouldn't they resent this? Unfortunately for the player, however, this leaves them with an experience which isn't nearly as good as either game. The classes are fine, but the lack of a dedicated medic or engineer type leads to them being nothing more than a quick means to adjust your load-out on each spawn. The maps are tolerable, but lack any sparkle or ingenuity. Medal of Honor's multiplayer is left looking like the girl at the prom with a hand-me-down dress. The bizarre move to have the single and multiplayer parts of the game run under different engines shows just how fractured and rushed this game's development has been. Nobody, unless they were out of their cash hungry minds, would do a cross-engine game. I don't know for a fact, but I'm willing to put my reputation on the line to say that no classic, or even great game, has ever come out of such an approach.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y242/LostGames/moh3.jpg
The bland theme continues into the visuals, which are washed-out and jaggy in the single-player, while rushed but smoother on the multiplayer side. Audio is fine but the voice acting is just as forgettable as the characters you encounter. At several points in the game I got confused which call-sign corresponded to which disinterested face within my unit. The game may well have already sold over a million copies, but it has done it thanks to the popularity of its concept rather than the quality of the game. I imagine this was EA's primary objective with the title, but their spineless attempt to copy a competitor has fallen flat creatively. Even Treyarch, as oft derided as they are, have the strength of conviction to try something new in the face of overwhelming sales pressure and, unless you want to rent, I suggest that you wait until their game comes out to get your fix of first-person warfare. Medal of Honor is a tolerable failure.
Score: 2.5 out of 5
http://evavhost.com/public/25.gif
The Good Functions perfectly well for the most part, the controls are familiar and the cover sliding move is cool. The firefights, while unchanging and bland, don’t frustrate either.
The online servers are active, and offers many of the features you expect.
The Bad The whole thing is just so devoid of shock and awe. Boring location, dull gameplay and simple, fairly poor level design.
Visually it really fails to compete - presentation had evidently been rushed.
Dumb-fuck AI fails to challenge, rarely even managing to fight effectively.
The multiplayer is a jack of all trades, a master of none.
The Ugly Game-breaking bugs are never welcome.