Sunday, January 8, 2012

Medal of Honor Review

Platform: PC
Genre: FPS

So a long time ago there was this game series called Medal of Honor, a shooter concentrating on WW2 events. But a part of the team working on the games left because they wanted to introduce some new
mechanics that EA didn't agree on. They made their own game called Call of Duty. At first it was a WW2 shooter just like Medal of Honor. But with the fourth installment called Modern Warfare they really hit it big (the previous ones were good also). So Medal of Honor was forgotten. They tried a resurrection with airborne but that didn't go as well as expected. Now EA (actually somewhere a year ago) tried to come back with Medal of Honor, a reboot to the series that seemed to be a copy/paste of Modern Warfare.

The story sets up a conflict between US and Afghani forces and unlike Call of Duty it is not as "big". Instead of going on a world domination spree, or the US getting it's butt kicked by another country it focuses on a smaller combat area ... some mountains somewhere and it follows the stories of 4 soldiers present in the war. The stories are pretty tied to each other, and you will get to like some of the protagonists and/or their friends. You don't have to be a genius to see that the whole game revolves around a true event and it's kinda tribute to the real soldiers fighting on the field.

The shooting monotony (found in any war-FPS) is split up by some ATV-driving sequences and a rail-shooter like level when you are in a Apache helicopter taking down ground targets. Like mentioned before I thought the game to be a Call of Duty rip-off but I can say I was pleasantly surprised by it. The story had it's cinematic moments, and developed step-by-step to a pleasing ending. They actually made a good story, without too many rambo-one-man-team moments and made me feel sorrow for some of the guys when holding a position in a house crumbling around us and ammo draining by the second.

While the game looks ok and the gameplay is nothing out of the ordinary, the one thing that really shines is the sound, and here I'm talking about everything included: voice-acting, soundtrack and pew-pew sounds. Also I just need to mention the Linkin Park ending song from the credits which really hit the spot.

One complaint I would have about the singleplayer campaign is that it's waaaay to short and the quality of the cinematics that are not rendered with the games engine is dubious to say the least.

Also I cannot mention a bug due to it's size. Somewhere at the begining of the game I went into a yard and almost everything wasn't there. I could see only door-frames and floating objects. When nearing a door I could clearly see enemies spawn behind it (actually inside a house I guess) and could kill them through what should've been walls.

Moving on to the multiplayer.

This is a different story, and when I say different I mean completely. The game was divided between two teams for the single and multiplayer components. So the multiplayer was made by DICE (known for their Battlefield games, which are awesome played online, although I suck at them). But here they kept their formula and even put the Frostbite engine in (the singleplayer being made in a heavily modified Unreal Engine 3) ... still it's not as good as expected. They only put in 3 classes (assault, something and sniper ... probably named differently) and 15 levels for each. For as much as I played is a total dissaster ... since there is no balance and higher level player can kill you before you even twitch (it might be my poor skill ... but still) ... I will come back with more info about maps and game modes when I'll play more ... 'till now I haven't seen anything new or innovative.

the bad: short campaign, bugs, unbalanced multiplayer
the good: story, presentation, Dusty (what ? I really liked the guy)

[more screenshots on our facebook page, please like/friend/subscribe/whatever]

No comments:

Post a Comment