Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Learn More Shop now Shop Women's Shop Men's

Customer Reviews

3.9 out of 5 stars
101
3.9 out of 5 stars
Platform: PlayStation3|Edition: Standard|Format: Box|Change
Price:£4.94+ £4.39 shipping
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item


There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on 24 June 2012
Well this game oozes style graphic style that is...its devoid of falling into the cod frame of mind shooter wise
the game has a lacklustre single player and a frustrating yet enjoyable at times multiplayer to date june 2012 there are less than 900 people playing online not good for a two year old game worrying for those shelling out money for the dlc which should be free or reduced on the psn store...like they did a while back for all the cod games ..my advice get it for a cheaper price on ebay (five pounds i paid with the online pass) otherwise expect warfighter to replace this gaem fast or just get BF3 premium a bargain in my eyes and a better if slighty glitch freeze prone game still the one to get and still hands down best shooter since mw2

pros
fast gameplay
great graphics
sounds are pretty realistic

cons
short single player
dwindling online multiplayer population
too few maps
you die real quick sniping end to end is common
airstrikes annoy
maps look similar
class system and ranking up is boring
overpriced dlc
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 26 December 2010
Never usually write reviews after completing a game, but here I go anyway.

I bought and played this game fully aware of the criticisms levelled at it. All of it was compared to COD Black Ops. A few days ago I noticed that COD had received the same review score from Edge which it had given to MOH. This made me slightly suspicious as to the claims of it being terrible.

Needless to say, I started playing it and did notice a slightly different feel (you will see what I mean) to the controls. However, this really enhanced the experience for me for, as in the real world, a soldier would not be able to shove a gun around the map in 0.05 miliseconds. Another feature I rather liked was the fact that this game was not a show of pyrotechnics and globe-trotting plots. It was very much a limited game to Afghanistan, and the story was very much straight forward. It had a good moral story at heart, and one you will realise after completion.

I managed to complete the game in one day - but this was largely because I didn't play anything else (with the exception of a chapter of Dead Space). I would say that it is short and sweet, in that you won't be playing the campaign for 555 hours. But isn't that a good thing? Certain parts of this game were so incredible that I wouldn't hesitate to replay it on Tier 1 mode, or even hard mode. I couldn't imagine that artificially extending the length would benefit the game, for what I played was succinct and well executed (even the ATV sections, which I heard were supposed to be awful, but I actually quite enjoyed them).

I bought this for [...] and I would recommend a purchase of this even if you are unconvinced. I was blown away at times, and I sincerely hope EA release a sequel and take the approach that they did to Battlefield Bad Company 2 (DICE developed, I know, but EA published).

The standard edition I have contained Frontline HD - so if you can get that you are getting two games for the price of one, or three if you include Multiplayer (which I haven't yet had the chance to experience).

Let me give a few positives of the games, and then a few negatives (which will hopefully be used to hone the sequel into something incredible).

3 good points:

1) Felt realistic - you were not some sort of superman. This approach was very good in several missions.
2) Tier 1 missions - stealthy elements were fantastic. More of these in future.
3) Set-pieces - absolutely blew me away at points (won't reveal my highlight of the game - it wasn't the helicopter level, surprise!). We need more of these good set-pieces.

3 bad points:

1) Length, though completely fine in terms of not adding needless fat onto the experience, could have perhaps benefited from a slight lengthening. Perhaps more of the Tier 1 missions?
2) Story - up until the end, it was lacking. Perhaps a stronger narrative than "Drive back the Taliban" could have been more engaging for the player?
3) Controls could be more fluid - more towards COD-style, but not as fast.
0Comment| 11 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 26 December 2010
Just finished playing MOH and right after COD BO. MOH is defn underrated for its price vs offering. lacks the storyline but good gameplay overall. perhaps paying the price of being a bit politicized as well.

- Storyline: short campaign and a bit confusing as you play three different characters, but gives you a good glimpse of all types of modern warfare either stealth or open. you have to use different weapons including snipers, Apaches and even atvs, overall a good mix. dialogues are also pretty interesting, where perhaps feedback from real T1 specialists played a big role...

- Graphics: worse than MW2, at par or even better than COD BO and MW1 although have had experienced a few glimpses. Sometimes reminded me of Battlefield 2 as well. you will enjoy the details of the terrain night or day. sunset or moonlight, you will spend a few secs looking at how beautiful they look. overall, a far satisfying feeling than COD BO.

- Tier 1 Mode: an innovative approach as you could compare how fast you are in any mission compared to others, but would not make you to play the game all over again if you are not after the trophy.

- Multiplayer: feels simple but if you are after action will give you what you want. nothing very innovative and MW still leading the pack though.

- Price: defn cheap for the quality of gameplay you will get!

If you like FPS games, you will enjoy MOH for this price. If it was as expensive as COD, would not recommend, but you will get a decent modern shooter for what you pay for.
0Comment| 16 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 28 June 2011
Medal of Honor ( or Honour as it should be spelled ) is a much underated First Person Shooter that is often overlooked after being released around the same time as Call of Duty Black Ops. The graphics and gameplay are every bit as good as Call of Duty but it is much more limited in scope, concentrating as it does solely on Afghanistan.

This is one aspect I was not entirely comfortable with as this is a currently ongoing war where people are fighting and dying. To recreate this war for our entertainment in a video game does bring to question the morality of the game. You could argue that it is only a game and not to take it too seriously but Medal of Honor makes a real effort to stress that this is a realistic and accurate simulation of special ops missions currently taking place in Afghanistan. They have supposedly called in experts from the military ( the American military I assume, not the Taliban ) and go to great pains to make it look and sound authentic.

The single player campaign therefore follows different missions carried out by the American special forces as you fight against the Taliban. Unfortunately the gameplay is, like COD, quite linear and you have very little freedom in your approach to any mission. While this may lead to quite a cinematic experience it does limit the gameplay to following set waypoints and doing what you are told.

The graphics are very nicely rendered, as good as I've ever seen in a FPS, but they are limited by the environment. Rocky mountainsides and sandy scrubland are all very well but it becomes a bit repetitive after a while. The weapons you use are similarly well modelled and have a realistic kick when firing them. Although the HUD is reduced to add realism one odd factor is the symbol which comes up to highlight any headshot. Why they felt the need for this I have no idea.

While claiming to portray a realistic version of Afghanistan though the game still has the almost standard mechanic that if you get hit you can heal yourself up again if you take cover for a minute or two. While this makes the game more playable it should be questioned in a game that claims to be a simulation. If only real life was like that - its OK, my leg will reattach itself in a minute. There is also no attempt to portray civillians, which unfortunately is common in a lot of FPS games. Modern warfare leads to far more civillian casualties than soldiers being killed and it is often difficult to tell friend from foe. An older FPS, Black Hawk Down did this very well, mixing enemy soldiers in with civillians and forcing you to follow the rules of engagement. I could also comment on the number of casualties caused by IED's in Afghanistan, which are not represented here at all.

Instead the Taliban in Medal of Honor are happy to fight in a more traditional engagement, trading bullets with the much better armed and equipped American forces. This can lead to the sort of combat where the Taliban are running at you across open ground being shot to pieces as they do so. Again, if this were the case in real life the war would have been won long ago. As it is most engagements report Taliban soldiers using snipers, firing from range and then fading away before they can be found.

That aside the single player campaign does feature a good mix of different scenarios and gives you a good 8 hours of well designed FPS action. When you are done with that you can replay parts of the game in what is called Tier One mode, which allows you to try to perfect your performance. You are scored on speed and accuracy, and then compared online to other players to see who is the best. If you are very competitive this could be a feature that interests you, although I imagine the top scores by now are pretty hard to beat.

The game also features a competitive online game where you take turns to play either the Americans or the Taliban on a number of different maps. Once again the environment limits this to the sort of maps you might expect in Afghanistan, so there is not much variety. There is also a definite pro-American bias in the choice of weapons available, as the American weapons are clearly better than the rusty old ex Soviet weapons available to the Taliban. As a result the US forces win the majority of games no matter who is playing.

Overall then this is a very good FPS game, but please don't believe it to be a realistic simulation of combat as it claims. This is the sort of war the US government would like you to think is taking place - one where the Taliban are a bunch of idiots, outgunned and without a chance. If it was realistic it would be pretty much unplayable - endless hours patrolling streets full of hostile civillians, waiting for an IED or a sniper to kill or maim one of your men, then struggling to work out where the attack came from - not really much fun at all. So, while I can see that they want to commend the bravery of the soldiers fighting in Afghanistan I would have been much happier with a fictional conflict that didn't make grand claims to be just like real combat. If you can get past this though there is a lot of fun to be had with Medal of Honor, and if you like FPS games its definitely worth checking out.
11 Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 14 June 2012
I was totally excited for this game at the time of release. Played it again there (Online) just today and decided to review it only now. Basically, here's what I think.

Campaign: Like the views of many here, mine are pretty similar all round. The Campaign is extremely short and poor, storyline-wise. BEWARE also, as it has been stated that this game is based on real events that have been conducted by real people fighting the 'War on Terror' in Afghanistan and beyond. In my view, one should not be fooled by this in any way; the game is clearly a work of fiction. The only 'real' event, mentioned very briefly in-game, is the September 11 (9/11) Attacks. As I say though, they are mentioned only briefly.

Online: How can I put this objectively... ok, the Online (Multiplayer) section is 'biased'... towards the Sniper Class. At least, that's how I felt while playing this section; also managed to unlock beat-near everything using the Sniper Class, too. What does that tell you?? Still, the Online section is great fun, all things considered, especially when you play as the Taliban (or the 'OpFor' as they are known in-game; why the hell did the developers change their name in the Online, but not the Campaign... silly!). The Online maps are very good as well, I must say, especially given that they are based on real locations in Afghanistan that are still considered 'hot spots' to this day.

Graphics: In the Campaign, the graphics are not the best at all. During missions set at night, it is quite noticeable. Then, during broad daylight missions, the environment and the player's surroundings are too bright, so it just doesn't work for me.
Online, however, is a different story altogether. The graphics are very good here; play it in HD and it is visually astounding!!

In conclusion, if you still haven't played this game and just so happen to be reading this review, I highly recommend that you rent this only. Do not buy it, although you would pick it up new quite cheap now, I would imagine. Overall though, this is a game that really should have been better but, sadly, was not and missed one hell of an opportunity, unfortunately...
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 15 September 2011
MoH is a great game for the PS3- not without it's shortcomings, but none the less a superbly playable and engaging entertainment. It's also an interesting object lesson in the way that popular entertainment and history are renegotiating their relationship in the early years of the 21st century.

As a game I'm going to focus on the single player campaign mode. MoH has 3 main game modes- campaign, onslaught (a variation on campaign where there are no 'saves' and your performance is ranked online) and multiplayer. This last was actually developed seperately to the campaign, and falls somewhere between the Battlefield approach of highly tactical cooperation, and the CoD 'kill/die/spawn' twitch fest (not my cup of tea).

The campaign is basically a fictionalised account of 3 days of activities by US special forces in southern Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002. The history I shall come too, but in essence the developers have taken a few 'set piece' battles and events, and woven them into a compelling and nail biting sequence of missions. The pace is delightfully varied, from stealthy creeping work, to desperate all guns blazing last stands, and the added variety of some lovely vehicle levels. I never really got the hand of the quad bikes, but they're just for transport between levels. On the other hand, the Apache gunship level is simply delightful- in spite of being a pretty standard 'on rails' shooter level there's almost no feeling of being constrained. All the levels have a real feeling of challenge- the few I made it through without respawning to a save felt like I'd scraped in by the skin of my teeth, and in most I had to retry tactics and approaches. There's certainly more than one way to skin a cat in this game, but an almost infinite number of ways for the cat to skin you!

On the down side- I finished this in an afternoon- maybe 5 hours of play, 3.5 hours of actual game time (restarts etc). Some levels could perhaps have been eeked out a little more (the taking of Bagram airfield felt abbreviated somehow) but then again, perhaps that's where the difficulty comes in (I played through on the medium level). The multiplayer has some great maps but as a noob you really are chum to the sharks when you join. And the lack of a squad mechanic feels peculiar, when the single player is carried through in a totally squad level story.

In fact this lack of any squad mechanic in the game is the single biggest weakness overall. The characters you play are all mid to low level ranks on the field, there's always a sergeant, a CPO or someone else to give the orders. Sure, that's a nice way to get hints into the game, keep is relatively simple, but it does set a 'headroom' for what you can do, how much charge one can take, and leaves one feeling ever so slightly that one is 'along for the ride'.

But it is quite a ride- a fictionalised account of the very real, crucial, controversial and harrowing experiences of US special forces in the early days of the latest Afghan War. In these early days of the conflict US, UK, Australian and other coalition special forces worked alongside the 'Nothern Alliance' of tribes to oust the Taliban government of Afghanistan, and then put the pressure on al Qaeda's forces in the south east, along the Pakistan border. this game opens with a couple of mission looking at the initial fight against the Taliban, including the taking of Bagram airbase. Slightly annoying to a British game player and reviewer this operation was historically conducted by a UK SBS team, not US Seals as the game portrays. And here the fictionalisation begins!

We then move forward a few months, into Operation Anaconda- the infamous assault on the Taliban in the Shahi-Kot valley. Here the developers have taken known elements- special forces teams being dropped into hot LZs, teams being split up, downed transport helicopters, and spritzed the whole up with an archetypal 'idiot boss' general back in the the US (though not in uniform, and not in Washington apparently). This is probably the account of the operation that most people will have seen- 5 million copies of this game have been sold. Many more than would have read an in depth report of the battle, or watched in full any of the news reports (which at the time omitted many of the details for operational security reasons, and probably more than a little embarrassment on the part of the Nato forces). So, when we see US forces subduing a goat-herd by rendering him unconscious, it is in contrast to the reports that US forces criticised German special forces for not killing such by standers. The developers have civilised the US forces. And when the Apaches level a village (a LOT of fun it has to be said) we are told there are no civilians there at all, again in contrast to reported actuality.

This is bowlderised Hollywood historical revisionism of a peculiarly insidious kind. Perhaps. The US is seen as being the sole protagonist nation (UK, Australian, German forces who are a critical part of the historical event are completely airbrushed out). US forces are shown to treat civilians dubiously, but not murderously as the historical record suggests. Mistakes in planning and deployment are scapegoated onto a single distant general, rather than being the result of complex institutional failures. And the tragedy of lone soldiers and operators being abandoned on mountainsides to be killed alone is replaced by a heroic, if ultimately [SPOILERS!] tale of teams sticking together through thick and thin.

It is just a game, and as I have said early, a pretty good one at that. But this is 'popular history' now. This is the 'Longest Day' of our age, the 'Bridge Over the River Kwai' of the Afghan War. We're seeing a few books, but this, to US eyes at least, second division scrap isn't even getting the meager cultural sifting that that war received. it's a dark and shadowed war, and if this is the only light cast on it, then I fear for history today.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 3 February 2011
It took me a while to get into this game - I liken it to reading a book and having to push yourself through the first couple of chapters to get the feel of it. When I see MOH I instantly think of how much I enjoyed Allied Assault years ago on the PC. The atmosphere was like none other at the time. Bringing the series into the modern era was inevitable, and I reckon they've done a pretty decent job of it, at least on my PS3.

As in the previous games of the series, there are introductory movies to sit through before you're plunged into the action - there are no tutorials here. It's all a bit dark a lot of the time (so I used night vision a lot), and I couldn't see who I was shooting at because of distances (I'm playing on a 26" LCD, it may be different when play it on a 42" plasma, if I ever get round to it).

The storyline unfolds quite nicely and you do get a feel for the characters after a while - something I found sadly lacking in COD MW2 for instance, but was very prominent in COD MW. That's the only reference I'll make to other titles in this genre.

The graphics are great but didn't quite amaze me - there was something lacking, perhaps in the animations of the characters. There are however some stunning backdrops though which do add to the experience, and the buildings and villages and outdoor areas are really nice. It is the sound though which I thought was pretty amazing - the sounds of gunfire, both near and distant, grenades and aircraft really do stand out. This was a big factor in the `older' MOH games for me, especially the soundtrack. I doubt a classical score would suit the modern arena of this title but it certainly made the previous games more compelling.

The helicopter missions were interesting, but would have liked to have had more of those. I thought the rides on quad bikes a bit of an unnecessary addition. Yes, it adds a bit of variety in the game but doesn't particularly achieve much. MOH needs more of this stuff but where you actually do something.

This game is not entirely gung-ho either - there are some slower, sneakier points of the game which gives it more of a realistic feel. Constantly gunning down `bad guys' is simply boring. Using different weapons and approaching confrontations in different ways made all the difference here, and I loved the teamwork element and sniping from afar (always enjoyable!). I agree with another comment I read about `air strikes' and basically having to reach certain threshold in gameplay before the strike came and then moving to the next section. Could we not play through it ourselves, or find other ways to overcome those obstacles?

The movie intermissions before / after each level were very nicely played out, but again some of them were just too dark - I felt like I was watching something out of Resident Evil ! A tad more on the brightness levels next time guys.

Bit of a half-hearted review as I'm not a multi-player to be honest, so this is based solely on the single player campaign. All in all though I have to say I have enjoyed Medal of Honor thoroughly. Fluid controls, nice graphics, lots of nice weapons to play with, great sound and an interesting storyline with a bit of emotion there - it just could have done with being a bit longer and perhaps taking control of more machinery.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 7 July 2011
Electronic Arts franchise first person shooter has been brought into modern warfare territory,set in Afghanistan.
Graphics wise this is nothing special-yes theres not a lot you can do with small villages or mountains as a setting but there is no polishing here they just have the feel of averageness(although some in game cut scenes in aircraft were lovely).
Gamplay-the movement i didn't like at first but a few missions in i got used to it and it plays fine,however the campaign is very short-10missions and 2 of those are vechile/helicopter based,so basically 8 short 30min levels which on hard mode was embarrassingly easy.I died once every few levels and that wasn't due to the skill of the a.i just my inexperience with the layout of the level or really strange would be an instant death-presumably from a grenade???but i could not see any indicator!2 or 3 times a level when a grenade was incoming there is a thin red arrow indicating what direction it is landing but in the heat of the battle i must have missed it(i am assuming it was a grenade killing me lol).Speaking of battles the firefights themselves again nothing special,there was 2 that i remember were a tad exciting but thats it-i was just ploughing through never with the sense i was in danger or could be beat(on hard mode).
Multiplayer was fun,i remember enjoying it when it came out-and i thought the graphics there were better also(a different company handled that portion for them).
E.A wanted this to challenge the elite shooters-so you have to compare this to modern warfare or black ops-and it just doesn't in my opinion.It's not as exciting,doesn't have as good graphics and doesn't have the same production values-just a quick example is the story in medal of honor has a colonel and general arguing over troop deployment-it was boring,never stirred my interest.Compare it with black ops interrogation scenes between levels--black ops has intensity-A-list hollywood actors(i know this isnt a must for convincing storyline but you cant deny the difference between these games)medal of honor is almost laughable in that respect yet EA have tons of cash to plough into games.
Reviewing it up to date now though,at the price it is and you love a fps,you cant go wrong-just dont expect anything great.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 10 June 2011
Let me start off by saying, it's not that bad. Compared to BO, it's very much better. You do get rather confused cos you play different characters, and the game don't separate them boldly. The gameplay itself is also not bad, the graphics, otherwise.

Gameplay:
You will be astonished with the amount of details DICE has put into the game. For those who don't know much about guns, let me tell you thins; this game will teach you more than COD. The ammo count, for example, is real. IF you reload whilst there are bullets in the mag, there will be a extra bullet in the gun (cos there's one in the chamber). COD doesn't go through with this hassle. The equipment have actual fire mode toggles. This may not seem important in-game, but cos it's a depiction, it's important for real life soldiers. The laser guiding equipment does work rather well, and is used repeatedly. Other areas of the gameplay is well thought out. The stealth at times, the shootouts with enemies, the use of equipments, and the blast radius of grenades (which I think BO is at a fail. Cos you can put a grenade and it explodes two feet away from your target, yet they are not dead. That does not happen in real life! Treyarch.) Overall, very satisfying, an much much better than COD (new ones).

Graphics:
This is where MoH failed. Yes, the backdrops are gaping, and the scenery are amazing. But DICE forgot the important bits, such as the details of the weapons, the areas where the player can actually walk up to. These are areas where the most care should be applied to, but DICE said otherwise. And they did exactly the opposite of GranTurismo 5. You would think that after making Bad Company 2's graphic, though not brilliant, but still good, that DICE would be quite good with MoH. But obviously they wanted to surprise us...

I haven't been onto the Multiplayer yet, but then again, I would rather go on BC2's.

Another fault with MoH is the slow reaction from friendly AIs. They would command you, tell you to hurry up, and then stay still for a good ten seconds before moving. The other problem is the slow loading time. It takes a while for you to access the game, and then you must choose to enter either single, or multiplayer, like they are two different games.

But overall, I would recommend this game to another. Despite all the faults, this is the only game that uses real tactics, and realistically depicts true combat of today. Plus, you get to know why soldiers on the ground HATE pencil pushers so much!
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 4 January 2011
I've just recieved this game for Christmas and i must admit i was slightly disappointed that i didn't get COD-BO instead(shame on me) HOWEVER that said i was very pleasantly suprised with MOH. Tho the story is slightly generic i found it quite interesting just because it is set in a current warzone and gives you a small understanding of how things look out there in real life. Sure the graphics could be better but graphics don't always make a game and it's certainly the case here.

Multiplayer is what mostly hit it off for me. COD is great in this area but it lacks team spirit, it's very much everyman for himself and for me this is where MOH wins out. There are no silly gimmicks like remote control car bombs it keeps the realism in check. Get a kill streak, call in a UAV to support your team, rack up more kills and call in a mortar strike. I found this much more rewarding.

All in all i'd give this 8.5/10 - Graphics could be better, story could be longer and a little more exciting, but there is some fun to be had a the multiplayer is a great addition. Role on the next installment.

-- Gaming is not just for Christmas, it's for Life --
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Questions? Get fast answers from reviewers

Please make sure that you've entered a valid question. You can edit your question or post anyway.
Please enter a question.
See one answered question


Need customer service? Click here

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)