Currently playing Medal of Honor SP on PC...
...and I'm having a blast. Fun gunplay. Fluid movement. Great pacing. Good presentation overall. It's a really good rollercoaster-type linear campaign. Some review outlets and gamers have judged Medal of Honor quite harshly. Not that they can't justify their scores and opinions with legit complaints, but they certainly weigh them unfairly - all the while playing down the game's strengths. If I'd put CoD:Blops and MoH side by side - campaign and multiplayer, I'd see highs of equal quality and familiar lows, yet many don't judge these games by the same standard. This is true for many games. Most recent example is Dragon Age 2, where I feel that a certain portion of the gaming populus, reviewers and regular gamers alike, want the game to be worse than it actually is - obviously for other reasons than a latent disdain of its particular dark fantasy RPG sub-genre.
In the case of Medal of Honor (and other non-CoD shooters set in the military sub-genre), I feel like there's some regret around in the gaming journo subculture. Like they're being morally compelled to stop the momentum of the military FPS sub-genre they helped to create. Listening to lots of podcast - I can hear subconcious disdain and discomfort with the subject matter. Everything gets labeled CoD-rip-off. While it may be true to a certain extent, I still firmly believe a game should be judged on its own merits and on what is there, rather than being judged as rip-off from get-go or against some great expectation set by a game's predecessor or genre conventions. If you've read Totillo's recent BF3 article on Kotaku, you'll know what I'm talking of. Talking about a dude wanting a game to be bad badly...
Biased. Anytime a game is being put into context to another game or to some great expectation, that's gonna result in biased hogwash - an opinion piece. Instead of talking about what was shown of BF3 at GDC '11 (like the most impressive engine ever), Totillo's talking about everything else but it. Take into account some real-world discomfort and disdain with the subject matter of the military FPS sub-genre and you'll have the perfect shit-storm of opinion-colored reviews/previews/articles painting everything with a layer of shit and most annoyingly - quite a few lap up such manure like it was honey wine dripping out of a horses ass and spread the word like it's bible verses.
How many of you have picked up Medal of Honor with the very intention of finding bad? From all I've read on the topic of MoH on diverse forums and comment sections, a whole lot had it in for the game. Unsurprisingly, those who wanted it to fail found it to be bad in so many ways, it's unbelievable! How could you end up not enjoying an enjoyable game? Well - maybe you got some Totillo up your buttcrack. Or your hippy ass subconciously believes the military FPS sub-genre is the devil's device to promote real-life war. Since you can no longer stop the behemoth COD, you'll try your darndest to prevent any other military FPS game to ever get as out of hand successful as Call of Duty by coloring it in the color of shit and cheap rip-off.
Food for thought. If you pick up a game, pick it up with the intention of liking it and having fun. Even more so if you are going to review it. Medal of Honor for one certainly isn't cripplingly bad. Much unlike some of the reviews and opinions try to color it. For whatever reasons they might have.
Log in to comment