Step into the boots of Tier 1 Operatives Rabbit and Deuce in this modern take on EA's long-running Medal of Honor series; the game features separately-developed single player and multiplayer modes.
1. Sniper rifles kill in one hit. Fucking breaks the game. Destroys it. It's like a BFG in a fists only Doom match. Fucking horrible and retardedly unbalanced on PC, it's clear they fucking designed this game for thumbless console noobs.
2. The ranking system is broken as fucking hell. I went 1:1 versus equal ranked tier 1 opponents, and the game demoted me -43 points, which is fucking stupid and ridiculous. I get +43 points from cruise missile games. The only way to get a higher rank is to boost or to intentionally join games with nubs in them. This fucking game's just like Modern Trashfare 2 in that you need to find the lobbies (servers) with the worst people so you can get all your killstreaks, which are impossible to get against players that are any good because of the retarded amounts of damage you take.
3. Latency. Horrible. I feel like I'm playing a P2P game without dedicated servers (cough MW2)
This game is great when everything is working out well and you've found yourself a wonderful server full of noobs that can't aim, but otherwise it's shit. Don't buy it. It fucking sucks and it's infuriating. Not infuriating by design (lol MW2), but because of all its flaws. However, if you hate yourself and love inflicting pain on yourself whenever possible, by all means buy this game. Also paint a bullseye on your fucking head and run out in the open shooting at the air. You'll make all the camping snipers really happy as they proceed to shoot off your limbs with their magical 1-hit kill golden bullets and then call down airstrikes on your spawn.
1. lawl, the AWP in CS kills in one hit plus sniping takes more skill than holding the trigger button and hoping you gonna hit something in full auto. 2. ok 3. ok
anyway if you need a server full of noobs to have a good time, you are a noob yourself.
" 1. lawl, the AWP in CS kills in one hit plus sniping takes more skill than holding the trigger button and hoping you gonna hit something in full auto. "
There's a reason why the AWP is banned on half the CS servers, and it costs more money than almost every other weapon. But you get the bolt action sniper at level 1, and it will kill to the chest or torso at any range with open tip ammo, so even if someone somehow manages to kill you first with an assault rifle or an smg, they'll still die to your bullet because you have about a half a second to kill them due to latency. Most of the times I get sniped, it's after I've killed the sniper. And yes burst firing to kill someone across the map with an assault rifle takes more skill than pointing your sniper in someone's general direction and firing.
Normally I don't need a server full of noobs to have a good time. But this game's structured around getting massive scorechains or being penalized, and you can't get scorechains versus 3000 ranked players that know how to aim, because it's impossible to flank on half the maps and if you poke your head out near a chokepoint you'll get destroyed.
You really have no right to complain. The beta was notorious for all its problems and the PC open beta was ongoing a week before the game came out. You would have known about the Rifles and the latency. Caveat Emptor!
I nor my brother had played the MP. And probably never plan to. I don't at least. I didn't go through the single player. I like what's in it though; the leaning, sliding, etc. But I don't really enjoy the game too much so I won't go through it. Maybe someday.
Sounds like it's not a game issue, but rather a skill issue here. The game is awesome when you are winning against noobs but sucks when you are getting beat by better players?
1. Agreed - bolt action sniper rifles are too powerful. Could be offset by either making all bodyshots non-lethal on a 100% health target or making headshots by any gun onehit kill. DICE is working on a balancing patch adding bullet deviation on the move and more sway. Don't think that's gonna be enough. Yet gotta try out Hardcore settings, which should allivate the imbalance somewhat, since sniper rifles can't get any more powerful.
2. Partially agreed - Skill Rating doesn't soley depend only on your K/D. It heavily depends on your standing in the scoreboard too. Placing high each round is paramount. I've got a ranking of 2700 at the moment. I need to score in the top 3 players of the round and have a K/D of 2+, or I'm losing points. The true stinker with the Skill Ranking system are the 'milestone medals' for 100 kills with each kit and so forth. I sometimes get outscored by dudes having 4 times less kills than me, just because they reached a milestone in that round. Sucks to take a hit on my Skill Ranking because some random dude got a ton of scorepoints from a 'milestone medal', which doesn't reflect his skill in that specific round.
3. False in my case - playing on PS3 from Europe on a fibreoptics connection, I've only had smooth games thus far. Generally - European Connectivity is very good, due to very dense population and high standards of infrastructure. Of course your experience might differ due to playing from America. Generally hearing way more complaints about laggy EA servers from your part of the world. EA servers are usually quite smooth for Europe.
" lol agreed with you. this game is fantastic when playing against noobs, when you're dying every time you spawn though, i have to say i raged. "
This means if you're having fun, the other team is not. This means the game is inherently flawed. Not saying others aren't, but I don't like the idea that you have to be playing against people worse than you to enjoy yourself, personally. Game should be fun whether or not you win.
" Not sure why anyone would buy it in the first place. "
The singleplayer has some stellar moments in it. Especially the last third of the game has some very intense and beautiful moments. While I haven't played any of the recent CoD games, so I can't compare, Multiplayer is a lot of fun. It's like a tighter and more focused and higher paced infantry-only version of BF:BC 2. Especially Combat Mission and Sector Control - Medal of Honor's versions of Battlefield's Rush and Conquest modes - can be pretty great. It can get tedious with too many bolt-action rifle wielding camping snipers though. Chosing between offensive and defensive scorechains is pretty rad. I'm looking forward to draw the comparison with CoD Black Ops' Kill Streaks in a month's time.
Overall - I've already got about 20 hours of gametime out of it and was well entertained by Medal of Honor thus far. Certainly gonna double that before I move on to Black Ops. Well worth the buck I spent on it. There's some retardedly jaded reviews out there and lots of gamers with misguided hate for this product. Just because you're burnt-out on Call of Duty doesn't mean everyone is or that Medal of Honor isn't an entertaining game. Seriously - get over yourself.
" The game's shit. The main campaign is boring and short, and the multiplayer is a horrible mess. I can't believe DICE stooped so low. "
Explain how the MP is a horrible mess? I feel like DICE has nailed what they have strifed for. A fast paced infantry-only FPS game in the vein of Modern Warfare and keeping the 'crazy' to a minimum. All the fundamentals are solid and fun and the scorechain system is interesting and quite well balanced. Instead of personal perks turning you into Rambo, these bonuses are defensive scorechains and buff the whole team and are lost after each death.
How many shots are you supposed to be able to take from a sniper before going down? 2? 3? 4? I'm pretty sure if I got hit by one sniper bullet that I'd be out of sight before the bastard could take a second shot. Maybe you just suck at the game... Yea the snipers are one shot kills but shouldn't they be? Don't stay out in the open, take cover, and trick the foolish snipers. I hate snipers as much as the next guy but I'm finding it a challenge to duck behind cover and pop out somewhere else to one shot the fool in the face which I'm sure pisses them off.
I'm enjoying the MP in Medal of Honor a lot, no latency issues, yea I get sniped, but I get them more often. Glad I don't have to worry about foolish perks like ninja or any of that crap, makes it a little less arcadey... Enjoying the maps most likely because they are designed after real locations and scenarios. The campaign was short unfortunately but it had a good flow to it I think, loved how a lot of the level transitions were seemless. I only played the campaign once and had no issues because I didn't make it a point to break the game, not testing, playing the way it was meant to be played which came naturally.
Think Medal of Honor has gotten a bad rap from the begining just because it's not Call of Duty, it's a shame.
@Seppli: The maps feel unfinished. There are invisible walls everywhere. The amount of times I've ran somewhere thinking I could flank the enemy and come to a sudden stop as I hit an inivisible wall quickly became a bit of a joke. Snipers are ridiculously overpowered, and none of the unlocks feel very special. After every match I just wanted to turn it off and fire up BFBC2. It just felt like DICE were forced into making this.
I liked the single-player but the snipers on the multipalyer pissed me off so much that I gave up on playing. I ended up just replaying Assassin Creed 2 in the meantime to wait for Black Ops and ACB.
"Not sure why anyone would buy it in the first place. "
Yeah,come on J.Just boot up Bad Company 2 if you really need a multiplayer shooter.You should have avoided the game in the first place. The only thing worth it in the package is the Battlefield 3 beta.
" Not sure why anyone would buy it in the first place. "
The singleplayer has some stellar moments in it. Especially the last third of the game has some very intense and beautiful moments. While I haven't played any of the recent CoD games, so I can't compare, Multiplayer is a lot of fun. It's like a tighter and more focused and higher paced infantry-only version of BF:BC 2. Especially Combat Mission and Sector Control - Medal of Honor's versions of Battlefield's Rush and Conquest modes - can be pretty great. It can get tedious with too many bolt-action rifle wielding camping snipers though. Chosing between offensive and defensive scorechains is pretty rad. I'm looking forward to draw the comparison with CoD Black Ops' Kill Streaks in a month's time. Overall - I've already got about 20 hours of gametime out of it and was well entertained by Medal of Honor thus far. Certainly gonna double that before I move on to Black Ops. Well worth the buck I spent on it. There's some retardedly jaded reviews out there and lots of gamers with misguided hate for this product. Just because you're burnt-out on Call of Duty doesn't mean everyone is or that Medal of Honor isn't an entertaining game. Seriously - get over yourself. "
"Fucking horrible and retardedly unbalanced on PC, it's clear they fucking designed this game for thumbless console noobs. "
I probably should have "stopped reading there", but I didn't because that's not my style.
So basically, you're saying that Sniper Rifles are overpowered because console noobs cannot hit their opponent and so need it to kill in one shot if by some miracle they actually hit someone. Of course, you were playing with awesome good PC players and so they were always able to hit you because they weren't thumbless noobs. But then, since they're so good they would probably be able to get head shots on you anyway, which to my knowledge (admittedly limited when it comes to this genre) would kill you in one hit in most games. And then you claim that you need to play with noobs to get 'killstreaks' or whatever the MoH equivalent is, and then imply that if it took you more damage to die, you would suddenly do better against the good PC players and be able to get these killstreaks against them. But they would also take more hits to die. How is this supposed to work? How many hits from bullets should it take for you to die and how will this help you against other people?
I don't want to be one of those guys who says "get better or play something else", but seriously: You're taking the gameplay trends of modern shooters (on PC) and blaming it on unsophisticated console kids. This in a game where you shoot people in the face.
Whatever man. The last MoH game I played was Frontline years ago, and that was pretty good despite being console exclusive and not having any multiplayer component. This newest title is entirely unappealing to me for a variety of reasons, but your anger seems misplaced and your rant against console kids is exceptionally juvenile.
" @Seppli: The maps feel unfinished. There are invisible walls everywhere. The amount of times I've ran somewhere thinking I could flank the enemy and come to a sudden stop as I hit an inivisible wall quickly became a bit of a joke. Snipers are ridiculously overpowered, and none of the unlocks feel very special. After every match I just wanted to turn it off and fire up BFBC2. It just felt like DICE were forced into making this. "
Of course, EA/DICE was 'forced' to form a team to do MoH's multiplayer. Even if it might be a mere 'hack-job', it's a solid and entertaining one. While the things you mention are what they are, I don't feel like the core of the experience is broken. The shooting feels right. The maps are quite fun for what they are meant to do. MoH's not about much flanking. It's about facing off with dudes all the time, which it excells at.
" Not sure why anyone would buy it in the first place. "
The singleplayer has some stellar moments in it. Especially the last third of the game has some very intense and beautiful moments. While I haven't played any of the recent CoD games, so I can't compare, Multiplayer is a lot of fun. It's like a tighter and more focused and higher paced infantry-only version of BF:BC 2. Especially Combat Mission and Sector Control - Medal of Honor's versions of Battlefield's Rush and Conquest modes - can be pretty great. It can get tedious with too many bolt-action rifle wielding camping snipers though. Chosing between offensive and defensive scorechains is pretty rad. I'm looking forward to draw the comparison with CoD Black Ops' Kill Streaks in a month's time. Overall - I've already got about 20 hours of gametime out of it and was well entertained by Medal of Honor thus far. Certainly gonna double that before I move on to Black Ops. Well worth the buck I spent on it. There's some retardedly jaded reviews out there and lots of gamers with misguided hate for this product. Just because you're burnt-out on Call of Duty doesn't mean everyone is or that Medal of Honor isn't an entertaining game. Seriously - get over yourself. "
This is where I stopped reading. "
While most every Battlefield fan will agree that BF:BC 2's maps are too 'tight and focused' already, Medal of Honor really goes all the way. I'm not saying it's my preference, because it's not, but it's fun for what it's intended to do. Of course, if you can't get past your preferences and enjoy something different too, you really won't like Medal of Honor at all.
I'm definitely gonna play more Medal of Honor and then CoD Black Ops, despite being more of a Battlefield player - at least until BF:BC 2 Vietnam comes out. I've resisted this type of multiplayer eversince CoD 4 Modern Warfare and I just felt now's the time to finally find out, what all the buzz is about. Admittedly, scorechains/killstreaks are quite fun dishing out. Nothing quite like going 40+/0 due to perfectly executed scorechain combos.
Then again, this shit will get old and I'm one to earn my kills legitimately. Mano-a-mano. Can't wait for BF3.
" Not sure why anyone would buy it in the first place. "
The singleplayer has some stellar moments in it. Especially the last third of the game has some very intense and beautiful moments. While I haven't played any of the recent CoD games, so I can't compare, Multiplayer is a lot of fun. It's like a tighter and more focused and higher paced infantry-only version of BF:BC 2. Especially Combat Mission and Sector Control - Medal of Honor's versions of Battlefield's Rush and Conquest modes - can be pretty great. It can get tedious with too many bolt-action rifle wielding camping snipers though. Chosing between offensive and defensive scorechains is pretty rad. I'm looking forward to draw the comparison with CoD Black Ops' Kill Streaks in a month's time. Overall - I've already got about 20 hours of gametime out of it and was well entertained by Medal of Honor thus far. Certainly gonna double that before I move on to Black Ops. Well worth the buck I spent on it. There's some retardedly jaded reviews out there and lots of gamers with misguided hate for this product. Just because you're burnt-out on Call of Duty doesn't mean everyone is or that Medal of Honor isn't an entertaining game. Seriously - get over yourself. "
This is where I stopped reading. "
While most every Battlefield fan will agree that BF:BC 2's maps are too 'tight and focused' already, Medal of Honor really goes all the way. I'm not saying it's my preference, because it's not, but it's fun for what it's inteded to do. Of course, if you can't get past your preferences and enjoy something different too, you really won't like Medal of Honor at all. I'm definitely gonna play more Medal of Honor and then CoD Black Ops, despite being more of a Battlefield player - at least until BF:BC 2 Vietnam comes out. I've resisted this type of multiplayer eversince CoD 4 Modern Warfare and I just felt now's the time to finally find out, what all the buzz is about. Admittedly, scorechains/killstreaks are quite fun dishing out. Nothing quite like going 40+/0 due to perfectly executed scorechain combos. Then again, this shit will get old and I'm one to earn my kills legitimately. Mano-a-mano. Can't wait for BF3. "
Here's the thing. I'm no fanboy to any franchise- I think it's dumb and a waste of time, and keeps people from different experiences.
I've loved the Battlefield franchise since 1942, and Call of Duty since the first on the PC. I've played a lot of MW2 and BF:BC2, and loved them both.
My question to you is why are you already saying that you're going to play more MoH than Black Ops? Sure, I might think that BF:BC2 is a better game than MW2, but I definitely didn't play more of it than MW2. When BF:BC2 released, I was really amped for what the VIP access would bring me. In the end, it was almost worthless. They never created one new map, and while the unlocks were nice, they really weren't all that fun. Plus, once I hit rank 25 in BC2, I had virtually no reason to keep playing. There was nothing left to unlock, and ranks were way to spread apart xp wise after that. It's sad that games have come to that, but once I've achieved almost everything that I could, it's hard to keep interest.
I've played 40 hours of BC2, or about 1 and 2/3 days. I've tried playing since then, but it really dosen't hold my interest for that long until I'm bored. I think a lot of that is due to the fact that there are really only two main gametypes (Rush and Conquest), and I really only played Rush because Conquest frustrated me because nobody ever wanted to play like a team.
But, I've played MW2 for something like 8 days. Like I said, I'm no fanboy of the game, and have numerous criticisms of it for sure, but the game just has so much more to offer objectively. Numerous gametypes, some surely more fun than others, but lots to choose from nonetheless. That is compounded with the great leveling system that always keeps you playing one more match. Sure, some people think that the ranks create an unbalanced playing field through the weapon unlocks, but I've found that it really doesn't make much of a difference. I still play MW2 every so often when another game isn't taking most of my attention because I feel like my time spent is "worthy," because I'm raising my progress each time.
That said, I don't know why people are dismissing Black Ops so quickly. Sure, it's till a call of duty game, but the more I see of it the more faith I have in Treyarch. I didn't play World at War multiplayer because I didn't have much interest in it, but I did play the singleplayer (mostly for achievements) which was alright. Black Ops will basically have all the upsides of MW2 (with more gametypes, changed leveling system) and has taken many of the downsides out (changed shotguns back to primary weaopons, fixed prone exploits, killstreak kills don't count towards streaks any more etc). It really seems like Treyarch has taken everyones feelings of the game to heart, and has improved from there.
Medal of Honor on the other hand is just a mish-mash of two games. It's engine of BC2 without all the expansive fun, classes, and vehicular charm. And it's Modern Warfare 2, without the extremely tight controls, engaging investment system, and numerous gametypes. I played a fair amount of the beta and wanted to like it, but it just didn't grab me because it really just lacked an identity.
Even with all that, it comes down to what you find enjoyable. If you like MoH, then more power to you. Play it and have a blast. I just find that a lot of people buy games and then try to tell people that they're great games to defend their purchase. That or that they're slight fanboys and dismiss other games just because that's what they've become used to, or they don't think that loving two franchises in the same genre is possible. Like in politics, I wish everyone were independent and could make decisions based solely on facts and not predjudices.
" Think Medal of Honor has gotten a bad rap from the begining just because it's not Call of Duty, it's a shame. "
Though I never bought the game yet, I have to agree with this. I notice a vast majority and I mean "REALLY" vast majority of the reviews both from critics and normal players alike are simply downplaying this game primarily because of their obsession and emotional attachment to Modern Warfare 2. it's pretty sad to see hard work shot down by everyday fanboys who possess no idea on what developing a game is like and simply shoot down what they see fit just because its of similar genre despite the difference in setting and game mechanics yet simply turn a blind eye to all the numerous flaws that Modern Warfare 2 has.
Make no mistake, I just passed on MoH simply because I'm more than content already with BFBC2 and there are still many playing it online(in my region atleast), I just don't have the extra buck for it since I got other games on priority, and i feel that Battlefield 3 will be coming soon already. Besides I prefer bigger battles that involve more vehicle combat and 90% destructible environments. :D
I can't believe DICE still hasn't wised up about the spawn points. Things like individual map exploitations make me want the age of scripting procedurally generated maps for multiplayer games to come even faster.
@Famov: I understand that he wasn't very delicate in the way he said what he said, but he does have a point.
Sniping on a pc just *is* easier than sniping on a console - I can't count the number of times in bad company on the 360 I've been trying to nail a guy but couldn't pan the scope quick enough to hit him, that doesn't happen on a pc where I can rotate 360 degrees by barely moving my hand (that example is purely supposed to be input device vs input device). This is really the most important fundamental here, using a mouse to snipe/aim is just easier, that's not a judgement on mice or gamepads or pc players or console players.
When no other part of the gameplay changes except the ease at which people can snipe (the run speeds don't change between pc and console, the players HP remains the same, the maps are the same etc. etc.) that can obviously lead to balance issues. For instance in the PC beta I was able to begin the combat mission map on the US side, take about 10 steps forward from the spawn and from there I could see a corridor of the map through my scope - no enemy player could get to/fire at me without first crossing in front of me - if I was on 'form' I could (using the bolt action weapons and open tipped ammo) turn that thing into a turkey shoot with no real skill (I could kill guys by hitting them in the legs, let alone needing headshots). It's not that you *couldn't* do that on a console, it's just that it's way, way easier and the result is a less enjoyable game on a PC if you don't like being sniped in the head every 10 steps by idiots like me.
In games like bad company this matters a whole lot less because there are basically no maps/situations where I could repeat what I did on MoH, the maps are too wide, there's too much cover, I can't dominate a whole team because they have to move through a specific chokepoint - but at least from my very limited experience of the game via the beta, the map design in MoH makes no accommodation for avoiding this kind of scenario. So it's not as simple as hurp derp, now I'm using a mouse the game sucks, it's more like, now I'm using a mouse and the game is designed the way it is, the game is less fun on PCs than it might be on consoles.
" I can't believe DICE still hasn't wised up about the spawn points. Things like individual map exploitations make me want the age of scripting procedurally generated maps for multiplayer games to come even faster. "
" I can't believe DICE still hasn't wised up about the spawn points. Things like individual map exploitations make me want the age of scripting procedurally generated maps for multiplayer games to come even faster. "
or you just can .. you know: grow some balls "
These replies would be funner if they actually made some semblance of sense. But that's not the case whatsoever.
How the fuck would your shit-tarded suggestion solve map exploits in any game at all? Oh, it won't because it doesn't apply to anything at all and you were just trolling? What a surprise.
I prefer learn to deal with ineherent almost impossible to get rid off multiplayer mechanics (you know people will always need to spawn, and the rather smart players will find were they poping no matter what) yea i know it´s sad syssy pants is mad
the option you suggest having a bot doing maps in real time.. i don´t find it that apealing, developers have very talented artist and designers doing this maps, not just from a gameplay perspective but for a realism, sense of scale, aesthetics and so on.. so yea i rather grow some balls
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along
with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely
increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.
Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other
Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll
send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment