Great SP, weak MP. Why? Read on.
I just picked up Medal of Honor a couple of days ago, after pondering whether or not to actually buy it, if any of you are thinking the same then hopefully this review will help you make a decision. It is a first person shooter developed by two branches of EA, there is DICE who dealt with developing the multiplayer aspect of the game and Danger Close (EA LA) who worked solely on developing the singleplayer side of the game. The aim of the game for them was to create a direct challenge to Modern Warfare 2, in terms of a sustainable multiplayer that could easily rival Modern Warfare 2 as well as a memorable and enjoyable singleplayer experience that ties in with the multiplayer. Does it compete with the current most played multiplayer? Read on to find out.
First of all, we will get down to the technical details. The game does look great, even when using 2 engines they are both very similar in quality. I did have a few issues with frame rates during some of the more action intensive parts of the game, not only that but I would say it didn’t even run at 50 fps most of the time. It didn’t really hinder gameplay but definitely noticeable to the technical savvy. But Danger Close did an excellent job with particle effects, creating some of the most convincing smoke and falling debris in any game I’ve seen. Sound in the game is phenomenal, I tested it on 5.1 speakers as well as 5.1 headphones and even just the bog-standard television stereo output, the game did sound fantastic – with incredible bass induced explosions and you can truly get a real feel of gunfire, with sniper bullets cracking through the air as they break the sound barrier, creating a truly immersive experience. So based on technical aspects, I have to give it to EA, they have done a stellar job.
Singleplayer:
The singleplayer portion of the game was done, in my opinion much better than the multiplayer. The singleplayer was developed by Danger Close (EA LA) and even used a completely different engine (Unreal Engine) to the multiplayer, which uses DICE’s own Frostbite engine. Both have their similarities but again there is some real differences between them, sticking with one engine would have made much more sense, but alas, what’s done is done.
The story is based around 2 military groups, Tier One – who are more of the covert special forces type and the Army Rangers, your run of the mill soldier. It switches between perspectives of two soldiers within each group, Rabbit (Tier One) and Andrews (Army Rangers). The game isn’t really based around any sort of objective; it’s simply just a realistic portrayal of what everyday life is like for soldiers in the Middle East, conveying their will to survive and the fight for their cause. There is a variety of missions from “Run n’ Gun” to covert ops style missions, giving the game a lot of variety – rather than just doing the same kind of thing over and over again.
The story is based mainly in Afghanistan, but some parts are also played out in Russia. The setting does get a bit bland from time to time as nothing much changes, sand to snow, sand to snow – which continues throughout the game, which left me a bit bored and disappointed with the lack of real variety. The game is full of scripted events, certain things are triggered which allow you to continue, and if you try to rush ahead to trigger the next sequence yourself, it just won’t work. There will be something blocking your way.
Apart from all that, Danger Close has managed to find the perfect balance between a realistic shooter and a standard FPS. As opposed to the multiplayer, the guns in the singleplayer all feel and sound differently, with some having much more kickback than others. Certain weapons can puncture through walls and it encourages players not to spray but to be more conservative with taking your shots as spraying will just end up in enemies escaping. The cover system is also one that is simple to use yet effective; you can slide into cover when running, allowing for a more interactive environment as opposed to standing and mowing down opponents from an open space.
The story itself is completely convincing, it shows how these men are faced with different situations and how they must adapt to the situation as it changes in front of them. It shows characters dealing with death, in the form of killing and in the form of losing a friend. The characters in the game are all realistic and reminiscent of what you would see in armies across the world, they take on a very serious tone throughout the story progression, with very little humour present – but the lack of humour gives the game that realistic edge, coupled with the gameplay which isn’t as realistic but can be made so with the various difficulty settings.
Multiplayer:
DICE has managed to create a decent multiplayer, that is fun for a while but it’s not something I can see myself playing for months and months without getting bored. There are 4 different game-types – Team Assault, Sector Control, Objective Raid and Combat Mission, most of which are pretty standard to any multiplayer. The only one that really stands out is Combat Mission, the attackers are tasked with clearing five consecutive objectives and a health bar meter at the top indicates the amount of lives allocated until the defenders win, this is repeated over 3 different maps. This mode for me was the only one that provided any variation from the rest of the gametypes, which were pretty standard to FPS multiplayer games.
There are a few things, which really brought the multiplayer down for me. The rounds are extremely short; most of the matches I played were under 2 minutes long, barely giving me any time to adjust to the map and get to where I want to go, never mind trying to win the match. Another thing is that as soon as you get killed, you drop to the ground and flop around as if all muscles in your body have just disintegrated, it looks extremely unfinished and rather comical, as well as that though there is no indication on as to where you were killed from – making it nigh impossible to go and get revenge. Even in Bad Company 2, DICE adopted a sort of lock-on camera to your killer – but they seem to have gotten rid of that for Medal of Honor. As well as the limited amount of gametypes, there are only 8 maps and each of which don’t really vary in size, most of them are pretty big maps and all of them quite urban – a larger variation of map sizes and layouts would have benefited the game by changing up the game pace and I think it is a major pitfall in the multiplayer.
On to the actual gameplay of the multiplayer, spawning is another thing that was done poorly. Players don’t have a choice on where they want to spawn in the game, it just gives them an option to deploy to the field and more often that not I’m thrown right into the middle of a firefight, which can be slightly unnerving and frustrating for players who actually want to obtain an objective. There is also very limited class selection with only 3 classes available to choose from – Rifleman, Special Ops and Sniper. As well as that, there is limited customization to the weapons and not a huge choice of weapons to choose from – making the player somewhat restricted when it comes to weapon variation.
But of course, not everything about the multiplayer is bad. The levelling system is unique, players level up by each class as opposed to having one level. So players will be rewarded more by playing classes that they enjoy to play – making the game more personal to the player, if you like. Incorporating killstreaks into the game as well as medals and ribbons was a good touch, as it gives the player something to strive for – but getting the killstreaks can often be quite difficult as you can very easily be killed as it’s not solely based on the number of kills but the number of points you attain from each kill. DICE have also done a good job of balancing the weapons, although at times when you die you think – he shouldn’t of killed me there, but such is life with most online FPS’s.
Overall, DICE have done quite a good job with the multiplayer – but I really don’t think it will be able to sustain month’s worth of play. It has the foundations of a good game but it lacks something unique and new to take over the ever-prevailing monolith of a multiplayer success that is Modern Warfare 2. If DICE want to take over the multiplayer they are going to have to pull out all the stops and really change it up with something completely different.
To wrap it all up, EA have created a relatively good game, in which the singleplayer outweighs the multiplayer. DICE were trying to make a multiplayer that would be able to compete with games such as Modern Warfare 2, but they just haven’t done it. Too many fundamental things are wrong with it, and there are not enough new features to pull a big enough crowd over from Infinity Ward’s feet. If you are someone who is looking for a game with an excellent singleplayer and a decent multiplayer to have a dabble around with then this game will be perfect for you. For a person who is looking for a solid and complete multiplayer experience, I would go elsewhere, because Medal of Honor just doesn’t fit the bill completely.
Original Article:
http://www.sanctuary4gamers.com/content.php/1348-Review-Medal-of-Honor
