should i buy medal of honour?

[PRODIGY404]

im just wondering, i want to get into some more games i usually play stuff like cod, crysis 2 and yeah i just wanna know whether its worth it or not.

[paecmaker]

MoH (If you mean the newest one) The campaign is short (4-5 hours) and its not as "epic" as cod or crysis. The game is on a more realistic campaign so lesser explosions and "UBER" russian bad guys.

I cant say of the multiplayer cause I havent played it but its like a mix between battlefield and cod, dont know how good it is or how many thats playing it though.

THe graphics arent that good sometimes it looks good but mostly its pretty mediocre. The maps (in singleplayer) is pretty boring and if you play it you will soon be tired of small afghani villages and rocks.

What I like about this game was the more realistic approach(I like that kind of things) and some parts of the campaign even if some parts can be confusing.
(for example the first and second mission)

In the end of the first mission(which I dont really like) they say that there are enemies up in some hills and you need to get there, it ends quitetly.

Then in the start of the first mission you just jump in in the middle of a war zone with explosions and gunfire, I was like WTF did just happen.

I think there are a review of it somewhere.

[Th3-devils-princess]

knibbler has MOH and he loves the multiplayer he dosen't really play the campaign that much...... the graphic's just by watching him play they looked okay a couple of glitches but apart from that they were good.....

[Shooter99]

It's not realistic at all. The weapons are dead-accurate and they have no recoil. In the campaign, your squad consists of up to 4 people, and you get to take out huge armies of hostiles. It's also extremely easy, because you can finish the game in 4-5 hours on the hardest difficulty - without dying, and only using your sidearm.
The multiplayer is not that great, because of the stupid weapons. I was a sniper and I was about to take out a far range rifleman (wielding an AK-47). As I was about to fire, he turned and got me with only two shots.
I don't really mind the visuals, and I can say that it sometimes looks really nice, although many people complain about the glitches - which are plenty.
Overall, it's got a bad story, average singleplayer, average multiplyaer and average/good graphics. I would suggest "Wolfenstein 2009", or "Operation Flashpoint: Red River" if you want to try something new and exciting.
Medal of Honor 2010 is just another "fail" game.

[Jayhmmz]

Medal of Honor 2010 is a shadow of its former self.

I don't know why EA haven't done a flawless job with Medal of Honor after their massively successful Allied Assault instalment. The campaign was fantastic and the multiplayer was second to none back then. The multiplayer still ranks up in the top 5 for me.

There has been the odd release that has shown a glimmer of hope for the franchise, like Pacific Assault and Airborne, but they just didn't give off the same charm, nor did it match the superiority of Allied Assault's multiplayer.

Medal of Honor 2010 is an average game, with a patchwork story, under-performing visuals, and a mildly entertaining multiplayer.

If you really want to give this game a shot, then I would suggest renting it, but nothing more. You can complete the campaign in a day.

[Shooter99]

Medal of Honor 2010 is a shadow of its former self.

I don't know why EA haven't done a flawless job with Medal of Honor after their massively successful Allied Assault instalment. The campaign was fantastic and the multiplayer was second to none back then. The multiplayer still ranks up in the top 5 for me.

There has been the odd release that has shown a glimmer of hope for the franchise, like Pacific Assault and Airborne, but they just didn't give off the same charm, nor did it match the superiority of Allied Assault's multiplayer.

Medal of Honor 2010 is an average game, with a patchwork story, under-performing visuals, and a mildly entertaining multiplayer.

If you really want to give this game a shot, then I would suggest renting it, but nothing more. You can complete the campaign in a day.

The guys who made "Allied Assault" were "Infinity Ward". That's why it was that good. Also, "Airborne" and "Pacific Assault" had a great campaign, but a bad multiplayer. I've never really expected a good online experience from a MOH game (after IW), but I've always liked their singleplayers. And MOH 2010 had a terrible campaign.
I don't really like the MOH franchise nowadays. They don't have any standards and they're going downhill.

[Jayhmmz]

The guys who made "Allied Assault" were "Infinity Ward".

It was 2015, inc. that developed Allied Assault. Infinity Ward came from members that left 2015, inc. Infinity Ward didn't exist back then.


"Airborne" and "Pacific Assault" had a great campaign

I wouldn't say that Pacific Assault had a "great" campaign, it was just good. Airborne did have a better campaign, but bad texture rendering and an endless list of bugs and errors dampened the experience. It just wasn't good enough.

[Shooter99]

It was 2015, inc. that developed Allied Assault. Infinity Ward came from members that left 2015, inc. Infinity Ward didn't exist back then.



I wouldn't say that Pacific Assault had a "great" campaign, it was just good. Airborne did have a better campaign, but bad texture rendering and an endless list of bugs and errors dampened the experience. It just wasn't good enough.

I know that, but even though it didn't exist back then, it doesn't change the fact that the same people did it - they were only using a different name.
I liked "Pacific Assault" for its plot. I like the Pacific, and there are only a few good games based during those battles (well, 2). Its story didn't really make much sense and the gameplay wasn't realistic, but there were some great moments (such as the last battle at Guadalcanal and Tarawa Atoll).
Overall, I am not a big fan of the franchise, but I am a fan of WW2, and that is the only thing that makes me play MOH games.
Still though, MOH 2010 was a failure, and I won't be buying the next one when it comes out, unless I read some positive reviews.

[paecmaker]

I liked pacific assault, but airborne, even if I enjoyed it I never got the OMG epic feeling(except during the accual drops, and in the last missions they used these UBER german soldiers that I just thought was annoying as hell. I havent finished the game because of those Motherfu****s.

[Fr0stByte]

At least wait for BF3 or MW3 before you get it

[Shooter99]

I liked pacific assault, but airborne, even if I enjoyed it I never got the OMG epic feeling(except during the accual drops, and in the last missions they used these UBER german soldiers that I just thought was annoying as hell. I havent finished the game because of those Motherfu****s.

The game had a bad multiplayer, but the singleplayer was fun to play through more than once. "Medal of Honor: Airborne" had stunning visuals, fun weapon combinations/upgrades, and a unique feeling to it.
I've finished it more than once, and upgraded all the weapons to the max (including the pistol you only get to use in the last level), so yes, I've killed a lot of UBER German soldiers with it. And even though it was historically inaccurate, it was fun.
It was a unique game - an interesting combination of a war shooter, an arcade, and a sandbox game.
It didn’t have an actual storyline, and it was way too short for a game of its time, but still, it was fun to play.