So, I’m wondering if anyone out there has the new Medal of Honor and if it’s any good. It looks like a good game and the multiplayer beta was pretty good when I played it. I was just wondering if it’s worth a buy seeing as I already own Black Ops, BFBC2, and CSS. Is it worth the $44.99 it’s currently on sale for on steam?
Do you have the two MW’s? If not, you should buy them, Treyarch’s additions to the series are disappointing.
Modern Warfare 2 is putrid.
And Medal of Honor’s a resounding “meh”. It was built up so much, but it was incredibly disappointing to a lot of people, myself included. The gameplay is slightly more realistic than Call of Duty’s but still is pretty shit. And the multiplayer is exactly the same as Modern Warfare’s, but with the visuals of Bad Company 2.
Campaign is short as fuck, but it’s amazing while it lasts.
I feel the opposite. I feel as if Black Ops and MW1 are the only good CoD’s out there. MW1 was awesome, WaW was iffy, MW2 was terrible, and Black Ops was the best so far IMO. Yet, I still want to know if MoH is any good. Do you have it?
@all
So, should I buy it? I’ve been sitting on it for a few days.
MW1 was made by IW, not Treyarch…WaW and Black Ops are from Treyarch. My problem with Black Ops is though it may have fixed a lot of issues found in MW2, it’s gameplay is nothing but a stripped down and simplified version of MW2’s.
And I haven’t played it, but I suggest you don’t buy MoH. If you’ve played 2-3 military shooters you’ve played all of them.
I don’t see how it’s stripped down or simplified. At least it’s somewhat fun. Modern Warfare 2 is a game that was only made to capitalize on the success of Modern Warfare 2. If Bobby Kotick wasn’t such a greedy fuck, it would never have been made.
True, true. I just like the fact that in Black Ops they did away with those shitty Kill streaks that end a game in like 10 mins in MW2.
MW = Great!
WaW = Great!
MW2 = Shit (buttered up MW. VERY disappointing)
BO= Couldn’t get into it. Just doesn’t fit right with me.
Black Ops is MW2 without the gameplay variation. All the maps are very very close quarters, all the guns are more or less the same, and the game modes, besides wager match, add very little to the gameplay.
I actually find Black Ops to be FAR more similar to MW than MW2 is. Black Ops is the greediest of the two sequels. The great thing about MW2 is that players can pick from a massive list of strategies to find the one that they enjoy and do the best with. The only downside is some strategies like tubing are way too overpowered. Also in MW2 every single map feels entirely unique. In Black ops every gun is like the last every game mode is like the last and every map is like the last.
First sentence: There IS NO gameplay variation in ANY of the Call of Duty games.
Second: You’re a god damn moron if you think ANY of the Call of Duty games have had anything BUT close quarters maps.
medal of honor has a couple of amazing SP levels, one where you snipe people from a mile away, and one where you blow shit up with a helicopter. The regular infantry combat levels are incredibly boring and samey, though.
I find it very wierd how the US military banned it from selling it at military base stores. So only way to get it for poor us in Okinawa is for friends back in the states to send it over.
I thought Modern Warfare 2 was far superior to World at War, but that is not saying much at all. My favourite is probably the first Modern Warfare, but it has some problems and I got sick of it quickly.
Teh Frog, the Medal of Honor is not worth the full price. I’d suggest getting it on a sale or something.
I just explained why there is gameplay variation. You can’t tell me there isn’t gameplay variation without explaining why I’m wrong. There are completely different strategies to playing the game. That adds at least SOME gameplay variation. And excluding a couple cheap strategies like tubing, all of them are pretty even.
And CoD has relatively close and relatively long. ofc it’s not going to have anything BFBC2 style, but there are maps with short and long range. Look at Wasteland, you’re lying to me if you tell me that’s not a long range map. And bailout (I’m pretty sure that’s it’s name) has a massive street from one end of the map to another. Have you played MW2 for more than an hour? The ONLY long range in Black Ops is Array, and Array sucks because most of the Black Ops guns are for short range, not long range.
Garthbartin, you have to admit that most of the Call of Duty maps are close quarters. MW2’s long range maps are pretty much limited to your examples(I don’t even know what ‘Bailout’ is though, was it in the map pack?) and MW probably had one or two, and I can’t even think of them off the top of my head. WaW had Outskirts, Seelow, and a couple of others but it was generally a bad game so it doesn’t really count.
Bailout was from the first map pack. Sub base, a generally very close quarters map, has one or two long range sniping areas. Skidrow has long corridors and some large open areas. No matter what map you pick you can find just about any kind of combat in it. In Black Ops, not so much.
I honestly can’t think of many maps where people actually use sniper rifles at a good range, except your examples…also I just thought of that snow one, it was pretty good for sniping. I don’t even really see the point in this discussion though, as CoD is a close to medium quarters game, I don’t see why it needs long range except for in a couple of maps. I haven’t played Black Ops yet(I do own it however) so I can’t speak for it’s maps yet, but I doubt they are anything special.