Why is Medal of Honor Single Player so disappointing?

Question

I bought Medal of Honor, expecting an amazing game. I remember the breakthrough of the original Medal of Honor of WW2. I was absolutely shocked that the game was over in about 4 hours. This was possibly the shortest game I ever played and paid a full price for.

Not only was it short, it was a step down from Modern Warfare 2, even a step down from the first MW, in almost all respects apart for sound and cut scenes. I know its not the same company, but why bother making a game that is not as good as its competitors a year after the competition was released.

The gameplay is stiff and unrealistic, the enemy is extremely dumb, the AI is sad, almost everything reacts unrealistically, be it the environment, people getting hit by bullets (why would a Taliban guy getting shot in the shoulder bend over and grab his stomach?), movement of vehicles and gun recoil.
The cut scenes were in a very good quality and lead to the next game action, I just don't understand why EA decreased the graphics quality so much between the cut scenes and the game itself. I played on the highest video options possible, and the game looks more like Call of Duty 3 (which was made in 2006) than Modern Warfare. It was so glitchy that as I was moving along the map, I saw enemies apearing out of thin air (it happens when you push forward).

I have to commend however the nice cut scenes and the sound of the game, which were quite amazing.

In the big hype about the game it was said that gamers will be playing as the US military and as the Taliban. But now I understand that it only refers to the multiplayer. In the single player you only play as the US military and only for about 4 hours, which was simply disappointing.

Is there something Im missing? Should I stop ranting?

Answer 1

My friend was a huge WWII FPS fanboy. Played all the PS2 CoDs, a lot of the MoH, and some BiA (He hated Brothers in Arms).

He always agreed that CoD out did every other series. MoH never was the best.

You might have just gotten your hopes up. Got all hyped up for a game that was bad. It makes the experience even worse.

Theres a reason MoH stopped making games and let CoD rule unopposed. EA could never match IW or Treyarch.

Answer 2

You should get Medal of Honor. Games that don't have a good multiplayer mode tend to fade away fast, once you have finished singleplayer mode. (But if you want a good singleplayer mode, get Star Wars) Multiplayer mode is always fun and adds to the value of the game. Even though Black Ops might be better, out of those three, I would pick Medal of Honor. ^_^

Answer 3

Dude it wasn't that bad. It was an good campaign plus fps are for multi player and this game is way better then mw hands down. Its not suposed to be like mw they did an excellent job on thecampaign as well I think ur on crack

Answer 4

It was an amazing campaign that was REALISTIC. Modern Warfare 2 was one of the unrealistic games iv ever played.

Answer 5

becuz all dice did was make cappy version of bad companyan slapped a differnet name on it...i agree with you 100% that game was crap especially with only A 4 HOUR STORY!!!!!....an the multi player is pretty much the same a bad company 2 also just with new maps.....putting DICE in charge of that game ruined medal of honor......the game ends like there will be a sequal...lets hope they get there head outta there @$$ for that one

Answer 6

stop ranting, i agree about it being 2 short i had the ww2 games as well they were crap, if i were u i'd try it again and see if theres anything u missed.