This really took me by surprise. The multiplayer is quite annoying for the most part and I'm not going all into it, but damn son. They made one hell of a singleplayer. It's kind of late and I'm a bit tired to go into specifics, but it hasn't been since COD4 that I experienced something of this quality. I may be alone on this, but share your thoughts on it,

Hmm... there is a lot of positive buzz on twitter... ICE T said the singleplayer was good. 
 
I might have to check this one out.

Thank you for that statement, do you mind telling us why you think it is so good?

From what I saw on the Quick look, it doesn't seem like a game I would buy... or rent... 

Would be interesting to hear what you think is so good about it.
 
I have to say I mostly agree with the Giant Bomb review, though I actually find the multiplayer more enjoyable than Jeff did. 
 
The campain is mostly forgetable at best, in my opinion.

There are a number of inherent technical problems and it steals entire scenes from other games (Call of Duty and Battlefield) in a dashing display of lacking originality, but it is a fun campaign. I would absolutely not put this on the list of "games you need to experience", but when you're looking for a good short single-player experience to pass a weekend and you can pick it up for $30, I'd definitely say it's worthwhile. 
 
The game fails to find many points where it can be unique. It feels identical to every other modern combat first person shooter, right down to plenty of scripted events, a few set-pieces, and racing down a mountain in a quad or snowmobile. Other than lots of beards and using real locations and the word "Taliban", I'm not ure I see all this "authentic" stuff they were talking about - though I do see some elements within the play that made me think "I bet a real soldier told them this was how it was and insisted on it being in there". Such as when you are in the middle of shit blowing up and the whole sky turns black with dust and debris, how you can hear your squad-mate in the same room as you talking over a headset *both* in the headset *and* in the room (I don't recall seeing that in a game before). Then little things, like when you reload, you actually have one extra bullet (because you have one in the chamber). 
 
I like how other games have big sweeping missions where you must save the whole world, but I also like that Medal of Honor goes the path of "here's a couple days in the life of these elite rangers doing what they do" and less "you are uber soldier who must save the world from impending nuclear disaster!". Granted, the events in those two days are certainly compressed from much larger stretches of time, but I'm not sure how you could have the kind of "one scene/team to another" dynamic that helps the game flow if you made it take place over a period of weeks or months. 
 
Anyway, I had low expectations for this title and the Quick Look presented it as an incredibly dull, boring, yawn-inducing experience. I was not looking forward to putting the disc in and firing it up. Not because of Jeff and Brad or anything, but because the gameplay itself looked so generic and uninspired. In reality, I found myself quickly caught up in the game. At no point did I think "this is the greatest game I've ever played", but other than a handful of very serious show-stopping problems, I thought it was a competent campaign that did what it had to so they could tick off all the checkboxes for "modern combat first person shooter game". In hindsight, I'd probably say it was a little better than average, but far from great. 
 
A number of people have slagged the scripted events. I have no problem with that. If you want a seamless experience across the board that is the same for everyone, you sometimes have to do that. It's just unfortunate that it's all undermined when your scripting breaks and backfires on you by making certain portions impassable (until you've played through two or more times until the scripting figures it's shit out and actually works). 
 
Still, I think I have to fall into the "why was this made?" camp. Maybe their ambitions were far greater, but this was all iteration (and in a very small increment) over innovation. Innovation isn't always necessary and sometimes fun is just fun, I guess.

What I liked mostly was the pacing. It's not as apparent at first but gradually you'll start to appreciate the smooth transitions from each scenario. The main reason for this is the fact that all the action is happening in one general area, not all around the world, and as such the different prespectives you get meld seamlessly from previous chapters. The abrubt hotswaps in campaigns of similar titles was something I really hoped a game would fix, and here it most definitely has.
 
It's not a long game, but the quality of the shooting and scripted sequences is pretty good. One thing noteworthy is the lack of frustration shooters these days just love to shove in your face. I barely died, and in the times I did, I was pretty aware I was not doing what I had to be well enough, and even in such cases, it throws me back in extremely fast thanks to tightly placed checkpoints and almost unnoticable load times. True, some like challenge, but that's what higher diffuclties are for, right?
 
The presentation is also really good, with smooth graphics and incredible animation. Voice acting is great and albeit a typical military bravado script, it draws you in successfully. 
 
There's not much of a complicated story, but what's told and presented is done so well it's easily forgivable. You'll actually end up caring quite a bit for what happens to your buddies by the end.
 
The fact that I feel like replaying this instead of going for more multiplayer speaks for itself. Bit disappointing, DiCE. Extremely well done however, Danger Close.

I'm definitely renting this. Even with the QL's shortcomings. I still have some hope for the main campaign. As for multiplayer... fuck that. The beta was terrible.

The single player campaign is fucking awesome.  Too bad the multiplayer isn't up to par.  Oh well, I'm glad I played through the campaign...loved it.

Count me as another person who likes the single player, and is wishing Black Ops would come out for his multiplayer fix... will be sticking with Bad Company 2 for multiplayer until then. I bought the game because I heard it was made by DICE — I should have done better research because this game lacks most elements that make DICE games great.

" Hmm... there is a lot of positive buzz on twitter... ICE T said the singleplayer was good.  I might have to check this one out. "

The single player from my experience has been pretty good and I can see how they've aimed at a more realistic experience and that's appreciated. I've had some issues where I've been waiting for my buddies to open a door or I've stepped into a odd black room with nothing in it that seems to be perfectly lit. Technical issues do exist, but the storytelling is pretty good. My short experience with multiplayer has been a sniper fest because the levels sometimes can be too open like a battlefield level and not close quarters like CoD, leaving you wide-open too often. I can't even count how many times I've pressed the select button to spot enemies and pressed down on the right analog stick expecting it to make me crouch like BC2.

" @Jayross said:

" Hmm... there is a lot of positive buzz on twitter... ICE T said the singleplayer was good.  I might have to check this one out. "

ICE T knows that the fuck he's talking about. "

That's deep

I loved the authenticity. I could tell that real special forces dudes had a say in the development. This might sound weird, but the tones of the guy's voices made the game much more realistic to me. If you ever talk to any real ex-special forces guys, they have this air about them, this tone, that I feel this game replicates flawlessly.

Outside of two instances of gamebreaking scripting bugs, I enjoyed the campaign plenty.
 
Especially the final third of the game was a blast. Everything past the chopper mission was stellar.

" Count me as another person who likes the single player, and is wishing Black Ops would come out for his multiplayer fix... will be sticking with Bad Company 2 for multiplayer until then. I bought the game because I heard it was made by DICE — I should have done better research because this game lacks most elements that make DICE games great. "

I've been waiting such a long time for the single player so whatever the reviews says, I'm picking this game up as soon as I have time! After trying the beta back in august, I quickly realized I was never going to play multiplayer anyways, so I'm probably not even going to touch that. 
 
I know I said I don't care what the review says, and I'm picking MOH up anyways, but it's good to here a fellow bombers opinion about the game and that SOMEONE actually though the single player was good.

I very much disagree about MoH MP. What it does well, it does really well. Namely teamoriented infantry gameplay. It's just got a very different pace than Battlefield."

" @Seppli:  I'm @Seppli said:

I very much disagree about MoH MP. What it does well, it does really well. Namely teamoriented infantry gameplay. It's just got a very different pace than Battlefield."

 Personally, when I think team-oriented infantry gameplay, I think of Battlefield — support roles like Assault's ammo box, Engineer's repair tool and Recon's motion-mines — which really motivates people to play as a team and help each other out. Also, you get points for using those extra support roles. None of these are in this game. The only thing that is making me a team player in this game is that I like to tail teammates, and then use them as bait.   Also, the importance of teams in this game is being neutered by the overwhelming number of snipers (I don't blame them, their weapons are better than everything else). Having an organized squad of 4 is relatively meaningless when you spawn into a sniper's field of view. And with no killcam, or even an indicator of where your killer is, there is nothing preventing snipers from owning the map. "

Yeah, I beat the campaign in a little over 4 hours, but what I played was really, really good. Its epicness, especially in the final missions, reminded me of the original Call of Duty. If the campaign was twice as long, it would have beaten Call of Duty 1 and Halo: CE for me (although nothing can touch Half Life 2 as my favorite fps sp campaign ever)

I really enjoyed the singleplayer. It seemed to pick up after the first hour, which I thought was kind of dull. The Ranger missions were badass.

the missions were great but those shitty 3rd-grade-hollywood-movie cutscenes almost made me vomit

I enjoyed the campaign much more than MW2, took me a bit by surprise.

Dude, that part at the end of Belly of the Beast was intense. This game is way better than I anticipated, multiplayer included. 

I truly enjoyed the single player, even being as short as it was, I clock in around the five hours mark at most. 
 
Does it have flaws? Yeah, plenty. So does just about every other FPS on the market. Is it worth $60? I guess that depends on how much you can get into the multi player, which just did not jive with me at all. As much as I love the Battlefield games, and considering DICE did the multi player, I really had hopes it would draw me in; instead it did nothing but make me want to go back to BC2. Which oddly enough I did not do, I went back and played through MW2 on veteran to get more shooter fix since I had not touched Modern Warfare since launch I figured it was time. Now I am crawling through Call of Duty 2 on veteran. Odd. 
 
Good game, but it was $60 I threw away in the end, I finished the single, tried the multi, borrowed it to a friend the next day and have no urge to get it back any time soon. At least someone is getting some play out of the multi player.

" @RankRabbit:  Realistic approach? They get much of the jargon and equipment  correct for the most part but do not mistake this action game fora simulator like ARMA 2 or somethign. This game is as much like the military as a Rambo movie is. Thinking otherwise is just fucking stupid. That statement reminded me of some kid/teen I ran into at a gamestop while I was in uniform asking me if the Army was like Call of Duty. "

" There are a number of inherent technical problems and it steals entire scenes from other games (Call of Duty and Battlefield) in a dashing display of lacking originality, but it is a fun campaign. I would absolutely not put this on the list of "games you need to experience", but when you're looking for a good short single-player experience to pass a weekend and you can pick it up for $30, I'd definitely say it's worthwhile.  The game fails to find many points where it can be unique. It feels identical to every other modern combat first person shooter, right down to plenty of scripted events, a few set-pieces, and racing down a mountain in a quad or snowmobile. Other than lots of beards and using real locations and the word "Taliban", I'm not ure I see all this "authentic" stuff they were talking about - though I do see some elements within the play that made me think "I bet a real soldier told them this was how it was and insisted on it being in there". Such as when you are in the middle of shit blowing up and the whole sky turns black with dust and debris, how you can hear your squad-mate in the same room as you talking over a headset *both* in the headset *and* in the room (I don't recall seeing that in a game before). Then little things, like when you reload, you actually have one extra bullet (because you have one in the chamber).  I like how other games have big sweeping missions where you must save the whole world, but I also like that Medal of Honor goes the path of "here's a couple days in the life of these elite rangers doing what they do" and less "you are uber soldier who must save the world from impending nuclear disaster!". Granted, the events in those two days are certainly compressed from much larger stretches of time, but I'm not sure how you could have the kind of "one scene/team to another" dynamic that helps the game flow if you made it take place over a period of weeks or months.  Anyway, I had low expectations for this title and the Quick Look presented it as an incredibly dull, boring, yawn-inducing experience. I was not looking forward to putting the disc in and firing it up. Not because of Jeff and Brad or anything, but because the gameplay itself looked so generic and uninspired. In reality, I found myself quickly caught up in the game. At no point did I think "this is the greatest game I've ever played", but other than a handful of very serious show-stopping problems, I thought it was a competent campaign that did what it had to so they could tick off all the checkboxes for "modern combat first person shooter game". In hindsight, I'd probably say it was a little better than average, but far from great.  A number of people have slagged the scripted events. I have no problem with that. If you want a seamless experience across the board that is the same for everyone, you sometimes have to do that. It's just unfortunate that it's all undermined when your scripting breaks and backfires on you by making certain portions impassable (until you've played through two or more times until the scripting figures it's shit out and actually works).  Still, I think I have to fall into the "why was this made?" camp. Maybe their ambitions were far greater, but this was all iteration (and in a very small increment) over innovation. Innovation isn't always necessary and sometimes fun is just fun, I guess. "

Campaign was definitely epic (and the best I've played since Call of Duty 2, MAYBE 4). The only downside was it was too short and the end kinda fell flat, I didn't even know it was the end, it kinda just happened.

" @Branthog said:

" There are a number of inherent technical problems and it steals entire scenes from other games (Call of Duty and Battlefield) in a dashing display of lacking originality, but it is a fun campaign. I would absolutely not put this on the list of "games you need to experience", but when you're looking for a good short single-player experience to pass a weekend and you can pick it up for $30, I'd definitely say it's worthwhile.  The game fails to find many points where it can be unique. It feels identical to every other modern combat first person shooter, right down to plenty of scripted events, a few set-pieces, and racing down a mountain in a quad or snowmobile. Other than lots of beards and using real locations and the word "Taliban", I'm not ure I see all this "authentic" stuff they were talking about - though I do see some elements within the play that made me think "I bet a real soldier told them this was how it was and insisted on it being in there". Such as when you are in the middle of shit blowing up and the whole sky turns black with dust and debris, how you can hear your squad-mate in the same room as you talking over a headset *both* in the headset *and* in the room (I don't recall seeing that in a game before). Then little things, like when you reload, you actually have one extra bullet (because you have one in the chamber).  I like how other games have big sweeping missions where you must save the whole world, but I also like that Medal of Honor goes the path of "here's a couple days in the life of these elite rangers doing what they do" and less "you are uber soldier who must save the world from impending nuclear disaster!". Granted, the events in those two days are certainly compressed from much larger stretches of time, but I'm not sure how you could have the kind of "one scene/team to another" dynamic that helps the game flow if you made it take place over a period of weeks or months.  Anyway, I had low expectations for this title and the Quick Look presented it as an incredibly dull, boring, yawn-inducing experience. I was not looking forward to putting the disc in and firing it up. Not because of Jeff and Brad or anything, but because the gameplay itself looked so generic and uninspired. In reality, I found myself quickly caught up in the game. At no point did I think "this is the greatest game I've ever played", but other than a handful of very serious show-stopping problems, I thought it was a competent campaign that did what it had to so they could tick off all the checkboxes for "modern combat first person shooter game". In hindsight, I'd probably say it was a little better than average, but far from great.  A number of people have slagged the scripted events. I have no problem with that. If you want a seamless experience across the board that is the same for everyone, you sometimes have to do that. It's just unfortunate that it's all undermined when your scripting breaks and backfires on you by making certain portions impassable (until you've played through two or more times until the scripting figures it's shit out and actually works).  Still, I think I have to fall into the "why was this made?" camp. Maybe their ambitions were far greater, but this was all iteration (and in a very small increment) over innovation. Innovation isn't always necessary and sometimes fun is just fun, I guess. "

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_P._Murphy
 
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Red_Wings  
 
  http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/06/afghanistan.us.deadly.fight/index.html
 
These are why I liked the singleplayer. 
"

" This really took me by surprise. The multiplayer is quite annoying for the most part and I'm not going all into it, but damn son. They made one hell of a singleplayer. It's kind of late and I'm a bit tired to go into specifics, but it hasn't been since COD4 that I experienced something of this quality. I may be alone on this, but share your thoughts on it, "