Medal of Honor: a series I am enjoying

[gorfias]

Watching a retrospective on Medal of Honor


I had 2010 Medal of Honor on Steam and had a problem which EA, after years of me not playing it, fixed! I got the 2012 sequel on PS3, "War Fighter" that Yahtzee mocked. OK. Stupid title but both games are really fun. I only JUST realized that the PS3 game I had was a separate game from the Steam game. Twice the fun.

Then I realized in 2016 EA gave Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault away for free and it was in my library. I'm a busy guy and just have not done justice to playing them. Well, I'm correcting that some and have to say, this is a lot of fun (single player campaign).

If you like FPS war sims, this is just very fun.

 

[Gordon_4]

Medal of Honour always struck me as the middle child in the genre. Call of Duty had the arcade, 90s - 2000s action movie formula down pat and some of the most butter smooth mechanics in the business. Battlefield concerned itself with….I won’t say realistic but perhaps more believable (just) plotting and having a truly epic scope in its multiplayer - I cut my teeth on Desert Combat back in the day and no one has ever done that scale better than Battlefield. I mean shit, clue is in the name really.

But Medal of Honour is just kind of…..there

 

[Samtemdo8]

Allied Assault's soundtrack is so good

 

[Hawki]

Peh, scrub, I've been playing MoH since the PS1.

Anyway, MoH has a lot of nostalgia for me, but of all the games I've played, the only two I consider to be genuinely good games (as opposed to being simply okay) are Frontline and Pacific Assault. And to address Gordon's point, I think MoH could indeed be said to fit in a middle ground. On one hand, no-one can call MoH particuarly realistic, because its premise of sending in OSS agents on one-man missions to do impossible feats is, well, impossible. On the other, it did keep its foot in reality throughout its run.

Honestly, I feel MoH kind of shifted in identity when CoD came around. Yes, Allied Assault is called "Allied Assault," but despite its cover, you're actually spending most of your time doing one-man missions, or at best, operating as part of a small group. Normandy may be on the cover, but it barely features in the game, and it's arguably out of place when compared to the rest of the game.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Watching a retrospective on Medal of Honor


I had 2010 Medal of Honor on Steam and had a problem which EA, after years of me not playing it, fixed! I got the 2012 sequel on PS3, "War Fighter" that Yahtzee mocked. OK. Stupid title but both games are really fun. I only JUST realized that the PS3 game I had was a separate game from the Steam game. Twice the fun.

Then I realized in 2016 EA gave Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault away for free and it was in my library. I'm a busy guy and just have not done justice to playing them. Well, I'm correcting that some and have to say, this is a lot of fun (single player campaign).

If you like FPS war sims, this is just very fun.

So the gunplay/movement is more detailed/nuanced than CoD or BF, and has less of that cheesy bs with getting killed as soon as you take two steps after loading a checkpoint by some random bullet?

Also is it designed mostly as single player campaign stuff or meant more for MP?

 

[gorfias]

So the gunplay/movement is more detailed/nuanced than CoD or BF, and has less of that cheesy bs with getting killed as soon as you take two steps after loading a checkpoint by some random bullet?

Also is it designed mostly as single player campaign stuff or meant more for MP?

They have multi-player but I'm in it for the single player.
I like a lot about Battlefield 1 but when I play multi-player in that one? I can't take one step outside a hovel without getting sniped.
The single player on MoH set on easy, so far, is very playable even by a guy like me that is not very good at games as much as I love 'em.

 

[laggyteabag]

I've never really had all that much exposure to the Medal of Honor games.

The original games were before my time, and after Call of Duty came out, the newer games were completely overshadowed.

I did play the demo of Airborne, and I did sink a fairly significant amount of time into the 2010 reboot's multiplayer, which was made by DICE. I don't remember it being particularly exceptional, and in many ways it felt a bit like a stripped-down Battlefield Bad Company game, but I was just happy to play around with some different maps, and a different weapon sandbox, after so many hours of Bad Company 2.

I never touched Warfighter. I remember the campaign was mocked by just about everyone - though I did hear that the multiplayer was pretty good.

Then the franchise just disappeared for a decade, until the recent VR game.

The series definitely has a lot of history, but these days, I don't really see what it can bring to the table, between CoD and Battlefield.

 

[Hawki]

The series definitely has a lot of history, but these days, I don't really see what it can bring to the table, between CoD and Battlefield.

I think there's a potential path forward if MoH focused on being an excellent singleplayer experience. I mean, BF is only really played for multiplayer, and CoD's in this position of selling itself via campaign, while people mostly play its multiplayer (least according to Steam statistics), MoH could be its own thing by doing a Wolfenstein. Which would arguably be in-keeping with its roots.