I anticipated MEDAL OF HONOR because DICE was assigned the mission of crafting the multiplayer component and I love those guys. I mean BATTLEFIELD: BAD COMPANY 2 is an awesome game and certanily the most solid, polished and exciting multi-platform F.P.S. as of now. With MIRROR’S EDGE they have proved they can innovate and that they have lots of imagination and fine aesthetics.
That’s why I’d wish they would mind their own projects, aka the Battlefield series (or MIRROR’S EDGE 2 – why not?), and stay out of this mess.
The overall impression I have of MEDAL OF HONOR’s multiplayer component is that it’s not a game on its own, but rather a Modern Warfare mod for Battlefield: Bad Company 2.
- there is a wallhack sort of bug which sometimes lets you see the enemy silhouettes through surfaces and obstacles,
- what’s more aggravated is the reload button bug: in the Xbox 360 version that I am testing, reload often does not work forcing you to shoot the remaining bullets in order to do it! There is no excuse for such a such a glitch when you have paid your hard earned cash, and it certainly makes me rip-off’ed. Oh and before you think that it might my controller’s fault, I tried several, thank you.
It’s not that the game is not good, because it is. It’s just that it feels like it’s been rushed, that there is a lack of identity and depth.
- M.O.H. has some cool objective oriented modes and deathmatch, with its mobile spawn points, is very cool, better that Modern Warfare’s equivalent campfest.
- Sniping is a lot of fun and there are no killcams. Yet, because the maps are not so big, it’s not very irritating.
- There is a steady flow of achievements as you start playing, which is good because it keeps you motivated while you’re still learning the game, even if suffering heavy casualties.
- Graphics are good thanks to Frostbite. – that’s an even bigger disgrace for the pathetic single player campaign. There’s some very cool meteorological and speciall effects, when a mortar strike hits near you for example.
Yet, there’s not enough weapons, nor maps, that can get you hooked up for very long. I’ve played COD4 for 2 years without getting bored (I would certainly wish more than one map packs, for sure), I’m playing BFBC2 for 8 months now without getting bored, there is no way M.O.H. can keep you excited for so long.
M.O.H. is better that Modern Warfare 2 in a few points, for example
- both the console and the PC versions have servers and do not work with host. Having been so much frustrated with COD’s host system (and host migration that works only half of the time), I can definitely say it makes A HUGE DIFFERENCE!
- overall the game is well balanced. There are no ridiculous guns like the Rangers or Model 1887, no Akimbo, no tactical knife, no heartbeat sensors, not even claymores.
- the weapons level up per class. For example, you unlock the red dot sights for all the weapons of the Spec Ops class.
- there’s no prone, and that is an imporant counter-camper measure.
Yet, M.O.H. is not as meaty as the C.O.D. or Battlefield games. And while talking about the BF games, something that I find quite outrageous is that there is not a BFBC2 controller layout option! I hate having to remember the controls when I switch games, and a big part of the M.O.H. audience is the BFBC2 crowd, so what the fuck! What is even more strange is that there are different controller layouts between the single player and the multiplayer components!
All in all, I think that M.O.H.’s average quality can be explained by the hypothesis that the primary corporate objective fixed by E.A., was not to produce a CODKILLER, because it would take a lot more efforts, resources and design innovation in order to so (single player and multiplayer alike), but rather to try to divert some part of the C.O.D. audience, possibly preparing the ground for the debut title by ex-Infinity Ward overlords, Respawn Entertainment.