My only question with this game is does it give you the ability to fly choppers, drive boats, ATVs, and other vehicles in multiplayer, like Bad Company 2?
If not, seems like I don't need an imitation of COD 2. Love COD, but Bad Company multiplayer gives you vastly larger maps and transportation modes. If MOH doesn't have those, I'll pass.
PC Gamer review:
Medal of Honor PC review They gave it a 75 out of 100.
I may play it when the price comes down. I think it's hard to do anything really new in these games because it's almost all been done before. That was one complaint in the PC Gamer review, that they copied some things from COD. COD copied from the original MOH games. I'm not worried about MP because as far as I'm concerned nothing has come out that was as fun as Battlefield 2 yet.
Yeah, see, this is the thing. MOH and COD (especially when both were WWII franchises) always seemed like the same game to me. MOH:AA and Spearhead were just cinematic WWII FPS games. COD2 and COD3 (I didn't play 1) were the same, except instead of playing only as an American, you played as an American, a Brit, and a Ruskie. Well whoop-dee-freakin-doo. Then MOH fell by the wayside, and COD was still making its games and came out with COD4 -- one of the first of the "Modern, gritty" shooters.
Really, most of these games don't do much that's all that different unless they've got something particularly unique about them. BFBC1 and 2 had vehicles (as with all the BF series), and BFBC2 has destructible environments.
MW2 has...uh...stupid controversial levels and cursing, plus a lot of guns that all seem mostly the same to me. Oh, and hack-ridden MP, I hear. But if you want focused infantry combat, it's apparently the go-to game.
So, how does a game like MOH fit into this? It's not part of a franchise that's well established anymore. And it sounds like it doesn't have any real standout aspects. the Gamespot article gave it a 7.5, and seemed to focus on the chatter between you and the other soldiers and an emphasis on "realism" (which apparently amounts to "Can we engage yet?! COMMAND, CAN WE ENGAGE?!?!" and such). That, to me, doesn't sound like much of a standout feature. Maybe if it was a game called Rules of Engagement that was all about only being able to shoot when given the go ahead or something...
Anyway, when this game was first announced, it struck me as a "me too" shooter, and I couldn't figure out why it was being made alongside COD and BFBC2. But then, I thought the same thing when MOHAA and COD1 were around at the same time. I guess they still haven't figured that out.
