Ive had this game for about a week as a friend of mine is a game reviewer so he lent it to me.
In one word...EPIC!
Whatever you read about this game, the faults of it are mainly thats its incredibly short (single campaign) and i believe this is what is marking it down. Its actually shorter than MW2.
But on the gameplay front, simply astonishing. Its obvious that EA have gone for the full-on experience and used that time to make a hard hitting, no bull game but at the expense of the length of it.
Make no mistake, ive played loads of shooters, loved MW and MW2 but this single-player blows MW out of the water. For a start the environment is virtually TV footage in its appearance, this is the only game ive played in years where on 3 separate occasions i actually stopped to lean forward because i 1. thought i was there. 2. i was watching tv footage. its that superb. This is the only game for a shooter where the weather effects are simply top notch, they have captured the moon shine, the sunshine..brilliantly. You will actually squint as you try to make out figures in the distance scurrying across the hills. And the scenery itself is just epic, fully rendered. I cant praise it enough, you simply have to play it.
The fighting itself again, makes you really feel like you are in a fire-fight, hide behind walls and the walls slowly disintigrate, get wounded and blood smears on the walls, bullets wize past like no other, take it from me, you wont be rushing into the open like with other fps. You need to think like a soldier and fire like a soldier. With high-powered rifles you can take the head off the Taliban completely, blood everywhere, EA havent pulled any punches. Your HUD isnt on screen, its a completely HUD-free game until you change mags, change guns etc then it pops up then goes away. The enemy move superbly and arent easy and your team mates and AI are effortless.
The sound is something else, there is constant radio chatter and instruction from your pals and it really immerses you.
The cut-scenes are faultless, and *spolier* in one section where you are the pilot of an Apache, you are saved by the sniper actions of a Tier 1 operative...the screen then moves out of the Apache to the operative who made the shot, next thing you know youre in the next mission as the sniper...and to add to the effects..you take aim on a moving target, only to find its a couple of bees buzzing around the scope...insects..wasps...smoek..this has the lot. You really feel like you are there, and thats not something i ever say with fps.
To me, the single player absorbs you like MW did, only raises the stakes. The downside is, its far too short, but make no mistake this game (single player so far) is immense.
ive been reading posts and reviews trying to decide to get this.is silly question .is the single player actually just controlling the one person or is it controlling a squad telling them where to go like in other war games. what is the online like ,i know its not released yet but wondered if you knew?
No the single player is controlling 1 person at a time but different people in different scenarios, just like MW. One mission you are a Tier 1 operative, then a Ranger, then an Apache pilot etc. You dont order your men around, they tend to do their own thing, but they are excellent. For example if you walk in front of one he will instantly say something like "man get out my way..stay down..youre in my line of fire" etc and they constantly talk to you. I would say its almost like playing online with someone else in that respect, the AI is very good.
havent played online as i dont have the code (EA are up to their tricks of offering 1 code per box) but from what ive read its meant to be great. Its by DICE who made Bad Company and thats considered one of the best online shooters out there.
The graphics are just jaw dropping, i thought id seen it all, you really feel like you are in a proper fire-fight.
i think this this is one of the best reviews ive managed to read on MOH so far, all the others are from the POV of journalists that seem to be biased towards COD:MW2 so its nice to see a gamer reviewing this for what its is!! Are u gonna review the multiplayer?
I might have a bit of a problem reviewing the multi-player, purely because EA have enclosed an online code that can only be used once, and im supposed to give the game back soon. I did get to play the online BETA multiplayer and that was good, very much like MW2 online if im honest, with killstreaks etc. The areas you fight in are very tight and specific and not big open environments like Bad Company, think MW2 and you're there.
I would say the single-player is quite an intense rush, its too short but i guess if you weigh up spending £40 on a football ticket and get an hour and a half entertainment, then £40 for a minimum of 5 hours probably isnt too bad.
Thats the reason why i wanted to post a review. Ive read the reviews from the POV of journalists and i think too many of them are brain-washed by the MW2 bandwagon. Almost like they are too scared to admit there might be a better game out there in some ways in case they get ridiculed! This game is easily as good as MW2 and in many ways better. I would say its more seemless, for example *small spoiler* in one section you are tasked at a Tier 1 operative and have to move from camp to camp on buggys across the terrain, get off, infiltrate the camp and place explosives..but during the same game one explosive mission is stealth, you have to do it by not making a sound or firing. Now the MW sniper mission was fantastic, but it was a separate mission in itself, whereas in MOH its seemlessly a small part of a bigger mission.
Also the weather changes from snow and darkness in one section, to clear skies and sunshine as you work your way through it. There are many subtle touches like this that can be missed in the game.
yea i completely agree with you i mean i played MW2 till third prestige (approx 8 days between release day and March this year) just got bored nothing else to do on it. Then I found bad company 2 two weeks after it launched havent played COD since except for a couple of occasions if it wasnt for me playing BC2 for an excess of over 300+ hours i would probably not get MOH due to the amount of people that i know who will not try anything else besides their beloved COD. All i gotta do is wait for 1 of my three copies of MOH to arrive now.
This has put me back on track with this game. I was insanely hyped for this game, pre-ordered the Limited Edition, as I'm a long time MoH fan and seeing the IGN review kinda made me a bit shaky. But reading your review has put me back for the hype, it does look awesome and IGN can be really biased (THEY GAVE MAG 7/10 WTF?!) Thanks man, keep the reviews coming :)
Thanks for the 'gamer' review P.K.Kellett. I have also read a couple other journo reviews giving this a solid, if somewhat unispiring 7 out of 10, although this has not put me of at all, and nice to see MoH back with a polished product. Also, I was always a massive fan of Frontline therefore can you, or anyone else, comment as to how this looks in HD?
Hard to describe what this looks like in HD without sounding like a fanboy rant (im not, by the way im *ahem* 40..) but its simply jaw-dropping. I love graphics, always have, and im actually an Art Director by trade so i know what im talking about, but even this left me speechless in parts. Its worth watching the cut-scenes because they are almost TV footage quality, especially the inside of the helicopters scenes.
For me the best part is the sun and moon. Its not just a flat graphic stuck up in the sky, the sunshine radiates through the tress and i mean through, like every gap i the branches. The snow glistens. The smoke and explosion effects arent just confined to a distant graphic routine going off somewhere, when a payload is dropped onto the enemy, the smoke temporarily covers everything, dust and debris fall around you. Leaves are constantly blowing about, there are insects etc. Its stunning.
I think its obvious now ive finished it that EA wanted this to be a quick punch in the guts type game. It is way too short, but **spoiler*** they have obviosuly set this up as a series, you'll know when you see the ending, i would say this is 1 of 4 or 5 maybe because the story narrative is quite short.
In my opinion, the graphics are above MW and MW2, and im a big fan of those, but i think it has been surpassed in that respect. Play this game immersed, sound up. Its superb.
With regards 'game reviews', i actually believe they get like 10 minutes on it to have a quick play then write a review. I think there's nothing wrong with MW or MW2 getting 9/10 but likewise there's nothing wrong with MOH getting 9/10 either. As a gamer, you will get different things from each game.
With MOH i think the shortness marks it down a bit but i think a lot of the reviews i have read have all missed the point regarding this game. Whilst MW and MW2 were obviously set up as a series and with an element of the science fiction about them, MOH has been set up very much as a 'this is it-this is what goes on NOW" type game. There's no 'heart beat sensors' in this game, people get killed, you can get killed very easy if you choose to go loud instead of stealth sometimes. But the biggest point of this game that reviewers are missing is the 'today' aspect. I came away from this game actually having learnt something, but the subtle touches are small and could easily miss them if you happen to be one of those gamers that just blasts through games without taking anything in. For example, as a Tier 1 operative, the minute you need back-up with air support its there, the minute you play as a Ranger and ask for it its 10 minutes away, which means you have to hold out with dwindling ammo supplies. Now this level of detail is easily missed by reviewers just gunning through it, but when you get to later missions after flicking between the two, you find yourself so wanting air support in some missions as the Rangers because you realise how well backed up Tier 1 operatives are.
This game is more about 'real life' to a certain degree and i think the lower marks are because the reviewers have missed it. They are expecting their heat seeking-gonad-busting bullets fired from a gun thats mentally controlled (ok you know what i mean) but because this game doesnt do that it marked down as "predictable".
I just believe the real message of this game can easily be missed, its about a short burst of 'realness' in as best a capacity this can be shown within a game.
After reading your review I am extremely glad that I didn't jump on the 'cancel-pre-order' bandwagon.
I've been waiting for this 'docu-game' for a while and I wanted it BECAUSE it's a representation of the real world fight in Afghan and not a fiction based war with imaginary or futuristic weaponry that has yet to be invented.
Like the OP, I am also very much sensitive towards extremely good graphics and from what I have seen so far, I know I am not going to be disappointed on that front. But I was recently reading a preview on CoD:BO where the writer stated quite bluntly how much better the graphics and game play far exceeded that of MoH. I can't compare the game play just yet, as I have played neither, but from a graphics perspective BO looks like something from the era of the PS2. Are reviewers being paid off by Activision to give such bias and erroneous reviews to undermine and in a way subliminally control the gaming public into thinking that their games really are far superior? Im no fanboy, but if anything that makes me feel less wanting to even try the game :|
Don't get me wrong, I loved MW1, but the storyline and game play failed for me in MW2 (Not a terrible game, just lacked the same emotions and online play was scaled down/lacked continued enjoyment). Battlefield Bad Company 2 had and still has very enjoyable multiplayer, but lacks the storyline which old school players miss, now that Multiplayer is the main focus of games. Don't assume ill of me though as I have evolved to love MP gaming too, but I still enjoy the singularity and emotion drawing epic that a good SP run has to offer!
BC2 in my present mind set, will continue to be my main port of call when I play FPS, but I am hoping that MoH (Like MoH: Allied Assault & Call of Duty 2 before it) will help me revisit the reasons why I fell in love with gaming and really warrant this purchase! I have no doubt that the MP will exceed expectations, but after experiencing the full destructiveness of BC2, I wonder how I can revert back to a more CoD esque orientated style of game play?
Roll on the weekend when I can fully appreciate and judge the hype/misinfo for myself! :D
To be honest im of the same perspective towards games, being a bit older ive grown up with original games like basic tennis being ping-ponged from side to side and early Spectrum and Commodore 64 games, so for me, the single player part of any game is pretty much my first port of call. The online/multiplayer section is a bolt-on in my eyes and i have a totally different mindset towards it. I enjoy it, but for me the single player always comes first.
I love BC and BC2, especially BC2 online. I loved MW and MW2 (though not the online sections so much) so im not reviewing MOH from any perspective except how i've seen it and played it. I don't tend to sway towards the current best FPS at any given time, i just go with the flow and either enjoy them or i don't, so with that in mind i can't understand why reviewers are marking this down. And how can so many of them say COD:BO is better than this when they probably haven't played that game all the way through yet.
From what i have seen of COD:BO it looks a good game, but i wouldnt say the graphics are any better than MOH, i would say they are on a par with previos MW games. Again, i believe because its got 'Call of Duty" in the title they are automatically swayed by what they believe will be public opinion. The trouble with being a game reviewer is that you don't want to say anything against a game the public might slate you for, otherwise your reputation as a game reviewer gets questioned. I don't have that problem as i don't have a reviewer reputation to think about. Im sure there are 'back-handers' being dished out to reviewers, without a doubt, afterall, we're all human and its only our beliefs that make us believe otherwise, but im sure it goes on. I mean, if they could throw a few grand at a reviewer who they know will get 50,000 punters reading it, then a couple of grand is nothing knowing that he'll probably convince a few hundred to buy it.
The graphics in MOH are amazing. The cut-scenes are verging on life-like, due mainly to the lighting and animation. The sound also impressed me a great deal, its a bit soft so i would recommend people turn it up a nothc as a lot of what you have to do within the mission is spoken to you, its not on screen as a subtitle. So i would be aware of that. In some ways it really does put you in the front line in that respect.
I think the small touches i have mentioned will probably get missed by the masses. For example i can see a lot of people complaining about weapons, there are in fact only about 6 or 7 in the entire game. Only 6 or 7!!!! i hear the MW nuts cry!! but theres like 20 in MW and BF etc..yes...but if you were a Tier 1 or Ranger or Marine fighting in Helmand Province, out in the rocks, then there's a good chance you'll only ever kill an enemy with either AK-47s, RPG's or Machine guns!!! to some its a restriction, but in reality thats probably all the Taliban mainly fight with! You can virtually see the main Tier 1 guy they used (Dusty) as a consultant saying..'yeh its nice in a video game being able to pick up 30 different weapons...but actually they only tend to use AK-47s mate..."
See to me, when i played it my mind went "but wheres all the guns??" because im so used to MW and all the other FPS, it wasn't until a few levels in i realised why most were virtually the same, but you know what? it actually made the game better, because i realised i was focusing on shooting people and not running around trying to pick up every variant of gun just to earn a perk.
its little things like that that i believe are getting it lower scores. I think reviewers need to adjust their mindsets with this game, Yes its a FPS, but not like all the others. I think EA should be commended for slightly altering the genre a bit. I just wish it was a bit longer!!! :-)
After reading the top review on this post about MOH ive sat down today and played this straight through and found it was quite challenging in parts (played through on medium yet to do tier 1 mode or game on hard). The graphics are top notch however not without its faults and does glitch now and then.why the hell they didnt use DICE's Frostbite engine i don't know but i ve had no graphics trouble online and it feels alot smoother than the main game but it still looks great. The story is quite short approx 4-6hrs depending on your speed and difficulty, this seems to be the downside for most people but for me as much as i enjoyed the main game, i dont normally play the main game until the network down goes for some reason (damn you sony).So for me to actually play the game all the way through means that the single player was definetly worth playing.Only played online for less than an hour and hearing everyone complaining about the fact there no Killcam and spawn camping etc but none this has occured to me and the first match i went in to i got 17/4 k/d on sector control (using assault M16A4). Overall i think this game is definetly worth checking for both the single/multiplayer ok its not COD but isnt it about time everyone started thinking outside the box instead of being sheep and following trend. At least give it a shot at best u can always trade it in for the re-run that is COD.
Bought the Game (on PS3) as I thought it might be worth a try after reading countless mixed reviews. Without getting into gaming politics, here is my experience.
Single Player: Average id say, first half an hour i was pretty impressed, headshots are fun, weapon sounds pretty good, cut scenes ok. liked the sniper level in the mountains, got to be the highlight for me (heads explode with 50 kal). I didn't like the graphical/ technical glitches (had to restart at last check point 3 times on different levels). I didn't like the being lifted up every wall when all teammates hop over it with ease, just seemed retarded!! I thought the last few levels were rubbish and the end shocking!! Some guy rather ironically at the end says...."it not over" .... and then credits. Are you f***ing kidding me!! EA that is half a game!!! I didn't really get into the "Story" either, there really wasn't one at all! All i know is i kept being called a Rabbit then Bam I'm dead and its game over. Maybe i should have payed more attension but this for me this is not an "Imersive" Game.
Multiplayer: thought it was ok for a change but doesn't really cut it when compared with BBC2 and MW online. And yes it is a bit like a cut down BBC2 with small maps no vehicles and no good level destruction.
Can someone answer this it's really bugging me, when playing the multiplayer there seems to be less gore??? Like hardly any blood at all, if any. It's strange cos i have watched utube vids which show loads of blood. Last night i shot people with a shotgun and nothing?? What's up ? gore is set to on am I going mad?
Re: Multiplayer - I am a bit annoyed at the lack of team death match levels (5?) because that is what I like to play. Also annoyingly seems like you have to play them all through twice? Once as OpFor and once as Yanks. Still not that annoying though. Love the game. I like the fact that there is no kill cam!
That is the biggest annoyance about COD and similar games. Why shouldn't people be able to snipe if they are good at it? Nothing more annoying than finding a really good sniping position and then knowing that as soon as you shoot someone you are bascially dead coz they'll come and gut ya! COD get's so frantic with all the running around. I'm not saying COD's wrong but I like to have the option to Snipe if I want. At least in MoH you can play all roles and get a fair chance. I get to snipe and feel like I'm having a fun game but if there is a good counter sniper out there or a rifleman spots me they get me, it's fair. Simple as that. I hate to say more realistic, but it is! I finally have a good long range game to play instead of being forced into close combat "Arcade" all the time. I like to have a choice!
Can anyone recommend the Battlefield series of games are they like MoH? Is it right that there is a new one soon?
I actually cant believe how many people like this game and are raving about its amazing realism and sound etc etc. I'm sorry but this is one of the worst games I've ever bought!
The reasons -
Single player - well for one its undeniably short. I mean come EA, is 5 hours of single player gameplay on the hardest difficulty something to be proud of. This game has been in production long enough for the expectancy that the gamer should be hooked for at least 10 hours (minimum). I don't want to compare to COD here but at leats the zombie side mission kept you coming back) The story is pretty thin - I don't want to ruin it for you if you've not played it yet but my god is there a story?? I suppose its based on the realism of Tier 1 operatives with the brutal objective of just, well killing the Taliban I suppose. But there could have been at least some story/connection with the High value targets that special forces in Afghanistan are constantly hunting.
Online gameplay - seriously one of the worst online games I have ever played. Period!!!
I've played about 8 hours of this now and got to a decent standard in terms of progression, but all in all I'm just bored. The maps are so small you get dropped into a fight and are dead within 3 seconds. The reasons for this are heavily laid on EA's doors I'm afraid. There is only one respawn point (per team) which allows camping snipers to pick you off as you respawn or use air strikes to take you out. The amount of times I've lost it at this game because of this terrible map modeling is uncountable. In a word I hate the online aspect of this game. There are a number of things which don't really help it including the lack of weapons, getting stuck in the landscape (for no reason) and then the EA servers which are just flawed.
All in all I just feel really disappointed about this game. I'm no COD fanboy believe me and the preview videos that I watched leading up to its release plus the hype around this game just fuelled the anticipation that it would blow COD and even Battlefield 2 out of the water. I even told my friends that they should start saving for it...well I know feel like a mug and someone who has lost total confidence in EA and DICE to produce a half decent FPS game.
Marlboroman1981 - mate don't buy this, just wait for Battlefield 3 or get Battlefield 2 instead
Being a big MOHAirborne fan both campaign and multiplayer ( although had flaws) i couldn't wait for this game to come out as it had taken 3 years and in that time COD had released 3 world class games ( World at War one of the best multiplayers i've played) so EA had alot to live up to, have they?
Well no! Campaign - This mode is ok in that it's as upto date as you can get with the war in afghanistan, i am in the scots guards and have been to afghanistan twice and go back in 5 wks time. The terrain graphics are very realistic with the mountains, wind, fighters overhead and distant gunfire sounds. Some have said that the sounds of the weaponry in the game are crap but that is untrue, gamers have been used to COD type gunfire which has been enhanced and given the hollywood treatment with over the top effects. In real life the guns sounds quite bland and clicky and MOH seem to have the weapon effects 'bang' on! But the campaign is just far too short with 2-3hrs completion time! I thought when EA were hyping up their ads with interviews with the special ops guys, chris ryan ( SAS) etc who all were said to have worked closely with EA on creating a realistic modern warfare, but why didn't Chris and the ops guys say: 1) In combat i carry my own ammo supply and do not have to keep begging my colleagues for ammo who seem to have an unlimited supply but carry no pack/baggage containing the ammo. 2) Why can't my ingame character who is a seal/spec ops climb over walls when the other soldiers seem to climb up and over no sweat, i shouldn't need to be lifted over or pulled up. 3) When i throw a grenade in real life there is not a trail of fire/sparks behind it like a meteor as their is in the game as this would give away your position. 4) In warfare you pull a trigger so why have a picture of the SIXAXIS dualshock with R2+L2 triggers in the game booklet and then make the gamer fire with R1 with no option to change controls to R2, we don't press a button to fire a gun or pull a trigger to throw a grenade!!! 5) Seals don't approach a door they are about to kick in for an ambush and stop so one of them can say some macho one-liner before yelling kick that baby in, not very stealthy for spec ops! 6) In Afghanistan unlike MOH every taliban soldier doesn't pop his head out from behind a rock so you can open it up with ease. Multiplayer - EA asked us MOHA online players in questionaires about the flaws back then, and we told them some of the main problems were that the respawning areas were always the same resulting in spawn-campers ( sniping as soldiers reappear), and every problem we said has reappeared in MOH 3 years l8r, 1) I've averaged 1-2 spawn deaths per game due to 4/5 guys respawning together in the one corner and one grenade takes us all out!! 2) Maps are still too small and square-like, in one of the villages you keep respawning in the corner behind a house for the whole game, it has a path at each end so if their covered by the enemy 10 guys are stuck in a corner between a house and a wall, very poor designing. 3) Each team of 12 has at least 7 snipers and in certain maps even more, over half the players are camping and the wide open spaces map design encourages this. 4) World at war's multiplayer was designed better and in over 18months i played it i got spawned about 3 times.
EA spent millions on their ad campaigns saying they had created the most realistic modern warfare FPS around so they shouldn't be surprised when guys like me start pointing out it's flaws and problems. Who knows whether the consulting soldiers details were ignored or their input was glammed up hollywood blockbuster style. The terrain, weapons(apart from grenades), sound effects including weapons and the constant coms and advice being fed to you through the earpiece from other soldiers or the base are all realistic and made the little hairs on my neck stand up as it sounded like my job but the rest of it failed miserably to impress and COD have nothing to fear. I think EA uses the same AI in MOH as they did in FIFA11 because both the taliban and my football teammates AI in fifa11 act like brainless idiots. The New York Times said EA have had over 100k complaints about the poor fifa11 and it seems as if MOH is going in the same direction. I hate to say it but roll on Black Ops!!