Medal of HONOR Scores 6.0 OUT OF10, oooOOO

I'm still getting it, who is? I need to see for my self that its terrible.

Dear Gamespot,

Be the first to mention that the ps3 version included MEDAL OF HONOR FRONT LINE and amp up the rating by .5 !

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/112/1127112p1.html

ouch... that's gotta hurt. the score is substantially lower than that given by most other reviews - a rarity with IGN, actually, in case of major releases.

I played the Beta when it was first available for about 20 minutes and I have never looked back to it ... I deleted it immediately because I knew it was going to be bad. Some people will enjoy it, but most won't ...

I played the Beta when it was first available for about 20 minutes and I have never looked back to it ... I deleted it immediately because I knew it was going to be bad. Some people will enjoy it, but most won't ...

CBottom7

I played the beta on PC and was actually more disssapointed then I had expected lol. I expect better from DICE, but that said I am sure they had EA breathing down their necks to make this COD. I will stick with Battlefield games, thank you very much :P.

[QUOTE="CBottom7"]

I played the Beta when it was first available for about 20 minutes and I have never looked back to it ... I deleted it immediately because I knew it was going to be bad. Some people will enjoy it, but most won't ...

NaveedLife

I played the beta on PC and was actually more disssapointed then I had expected lol. I expect better from DICE, but that said I am sure they had EA breathing down their necks to make this COD. I will stick with Battlefield games, thank you very much :P.

[QUOTE="NaveedLife"]

[QUOTE="CBottom7"]

I played the Beta when it was first available for about 20 minutes and I have never looked back to it ... I deleted it immediately because I knew it was going to be bad. Some people will enjoy it, but most won't ...

Bow-T_88

I played the beta on PC and was actually more disssapointed then I had expected lol. I expect better from DICE, but that said I am sure they had EA breathing down their necks to make this COD. I will stick with Battlefield games, thank you very much :P.

i wouldnt worry about black ops, it's call of duty, they dont make big change...COD have winning formula to mainstream shooters.

It probably wouldnt get high score but the worse it could get is like 8-8.5.

I'm still getting it, who is? I need to see for my self that its terrible

Bow-T_88

MoH got great hype and while it is a decent game I don't see it standing up to CoD. There are many flaws in the game that hold it back from competing with CoD

I don't know why anyone would expect this to compete with CoD.

Oooooohhhhh... it's like a Blind Date that never ENDS... Too bad, So sad...

:lol:

Thats low compared to the other reviews Ive seen. Gametrailers gave it an 8.1 and I saw a gaming magazine, Playstation magazine Austrailia I believe, give it a 4 out of 5. So overall, its been favorable among reviewers. Im going out later to get it today. I could use a break from the typical shooters like Call of Duty and Battlefield.

MoH is just a building block for them at the moment,not at CoDs level yet but its a start for them anyway,expected way better. Huge disappointment especially the online,campaign short? Even more disappointing. At least theres frontline haha

I don't trust IGN reviews since they gave 3.5 for Afrika. Afrika is a really really good game, check the users reviews at amazon and you'll see.

[QUOTE="Bow-T_88"][QUOTE="NaveedLife"]

I played the beta on PC and was actually more disssapointed then I had expected lol. I expect better from DICE, but that said I am sure they had EA breathing down their necks to make this COD. I will stick with Battlefield games, thank you very much :P.

i wouldnt worry about black ops, it's call of duty, they dont make big change...COD have winning formula to mainstream shooters.

It probably wouldnt get high score but the worse it could get is like 8-8.5.

It got a 7.00 from Gameinfomer. They said its only 4 hours long...Screw it

I don't trust IGN reviews since they gave 3.5 for Afrika. Afrika is a really really good game, check the users reviews at amazon and you'll see.

jocaju

Its funny how every single time a new shooter comes out, it automatically gets compared with CoD. This is one reason CoD is so popular, people never stfu about it. With that being said, MoH got what it deserved. I read the Joystiq review and thought they were going to give it a 3/5. But not, it got a 4/5 just to cater the minor group of CoD haters. MoH will be my last shooter from EA until they can make a shooter that can actually counter CoD without having to tell us in their POS commercials. I like the single player and all but the multplayer is just terrible. Nothing innovative at all. Theres nothing about the multiplayer i have never seen before. BUT, this is the first of the reboot, and hopefully EA can just let Danger Close do a sequel by themselves with one engine and something new to the table besides their so called "realism". Or better yet, EA scrap Moh, and make Battefield 3 their definite shooter without plauging the fps genre with even more generic titles. DevilishStyles

[QUOTE="DevilishStyles"]Its funny how every single time a new shooter comes out, it automatically gets compared with CoD. This is one reason CoD is so popular, people never stfu about it. With that being said, MoH got what it deserved. I read the Joystiq review and thought they were going to give it a 3/5. But not, it got a 4/5 just to cater the minor group of CoD haters. MoH will be my last shooter from EA until they can make a shooter that can actually counter CoD without having to tell us in their POS commercials. I like the single player and all but the multplayer is just terrible. Nothing innovative at all. Theres nothing about the multiplayer i have never seen before. BUT, this is the first of the reboot, and hopefully EA can just let Danger Close do a sequel by themselves with one engine and something new to the table besides their so called "realism". Or better yet, EA scrap Moh, and make Battefield 3 their definite shooter without plauging the fps genre with even more generic titles. fusionhunter

You can get through the day without a cigarette, or a drink... but everyone rationalizes, don't they? So the game didn't rate through the roof, did anyone really expect it to? It's a military-based FPS...

... the break-down of how bare-bones the MP has turned out is really too bad. And a 5 hour SP? Those facts can't be fudged or open to interpretation... a painfully short SP for $60 is bull-pucky unless you're the makers of "MAG", and being truthful that you're hanging everything on the MP side of the game. But as a seasoned FPS fan, I surely expect more than a 5 hour campaign (and those of us who're into FPS will probably blow through it in 4 and some change on the hardest difficulty, c'mon now...)

I'm sure the game isn't broken, but reading the above testimony from a purchaser, and what they have experienced in the game means a lot more to me than a website or magazine review... and a 5 hour campaign along with 4 online modes and a cap of 15 on leveling, which took a player a few hours to reach the half-point...

... all I can say is that there had better be a phenominal patch, and some free DLC (maps AND modes) in you'alls future, or I would be pissed.

Usually IGN are very generous with their ratings, the other game review sites are pretty much giving it either 7 or 8/10 I believe it is a solid game. I pre-ordered and got this game as a change of pace MP for CoD. I will have both MoH and CoD so I am not as mad as I would be if I would just have to stick with MoHMister__Awesome

I'm taking a break playing it, actually I'm probably almost done already (think there's only two missions left based on the trophies). So yeah, it probably is only about 4 hours. Pretty sad as i'm sure my first playthrough MW2 had to have been at least 6 hours (maybe even 8.). This one I'll probably have finished up today even though I just got the game in the mail. There's no way to sugar coat that, it's definitely at least a little shorter than a game alot of people complained about being "too short". With DICE taking 100% control of the multiplayer side, I don't know how the studio completely dedicated to the single player campaign could only manage such little content.

As far as the missions that are there, they aren't bad at all in terms of their quality. They're no more "generic" than Call of Duty is sure to be. But it's true there doesn't seem to be much *NEW*. I do like the extra long distance sniping mission, and the one where you go from riding ATV's, to sniping along a ridge, to riding the ATV again, to clearing out a village, and then back on the ATV one more time. Pretty cool. Also a decent "apache" helicopter mission, but I wish it wasn't on rails. Bad company gives you freedom to actually fly the heli, but this one went the Call of Duty route where it's purely on rails.

I will say there are moments where the AI is absolutely retarded on normal - i.e. you shoot a guy in the back, HE DOESN"T EVEN TURN AROUND, so even after shooting you can still walk right up and knife the enemy AI. Overall it just doesn't have quite the polish of the Modern Warfare games, but it's not "bad". Technically there's a litlte more screen tearing than in Bad Company and some minor framerate issues which is disappointing - I'm sure that's just an issue on consoles. Call of Duty never has any of that on PS3.

I probably won't play multiplayer until tomorrow. I didn't have great impressions from the beta, and I hate "deathmatch" type games, but i have hopes for the "mission" mode since it's a little like Rush mode in Battlefield/Bad Company - which is basically my favorite multi-player mode in any game.

PS: I ran into that abomination goat in the game as well. It wasn't texture pop in, apparantly that goat just has no face. LOL.

Were people really that surprised by this? Most people that played the beta said it was gonna be bad (maybe not "bad" in a sense, but just mediocre at best). MoH didn't really stand out for me from the very start. I'm even more convinced not to get it now, considering the campaign is apparently only 4 hours or so long, and that would be the prime reason I would get it.

I was going to get this game on my brithday but, I guess I'll hold off on it and get Reach instead.

Outside of 5-6 hour campaign (which by the way is the same in COD4, MW2) the game is excellent in every way.

I would not read on too much into reviews since not one of the had judge the game on itself and simply quotes COD all over the place.

Unprofessional is the nicest word that I can think off...

Didn't expect that! :o

And nope, not gonna stop me from purchasing it.

IGN IS CRAZY though, they gave that PS move game TUMBLE 3.5 out of 10, and Gamespot gave it 8 out of 10, and that game is greatBow-T_88

that's why Gamespot is better than IGN