Well, I’ve just finished the first mission of Medal of Honor. And my first thought is, this isn’t the sleeper I thought it was going to be.
I’m from the school of thought where a game should do a little something new to get you back in a series. Call of Duty 4 did that in making a jump to Modern Warfare. Modern Warfare 2 changed its iteration by painting a story of betrayal which left you with mouth agape, waiting for MW3.
Unfortunately for Medal of Honor, at least so far, they’ve given me no reason to say that this game is better than Call of Duty. So far, the mechanics seem a bit too quick, the graphics are a little rough, and I can get headshots like nobodies business. Now maybe the last part is just my extensive play of MW2, or maybe the “no iron sights” in Halo Reach is really starting to pay off, but I’m just not getting into this title like I thought I would.
It’s also way too worrying that Danger Close’s shot at campaign is way behind the polish DICE puts into it’s Battlefield series. When your multiplayer may play better than your single player, it’s not a good thing, even with online being the “big thing”.
The best thing I can say about this title is the story seems to be great so far. You start off hunting for a hostage from the very beginning, and this mission relies a bit more on skill than run and gun(trust me, you die fast out in the open). The controls are pretty normal, with the exception of your pistol, of which I find silly(double tapping triangle to get it, and it fires when meleeing from a long distance). There are several gripping parts/situations, but they felt a bit lost on me, whether its been done before a’ la MW2, or that it’s 3 in the morning.
As I put it, I’m just a mission in and haven’t played multiplayer yet, so I wouldn’t call this a non-sleeper yet. This game has a shot to get really good really fast. But I am truly concerned that this game did not wow me from the second I put it in. Hopefully we’ll have more of a full review soon.
-TTR
