Mixx
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
delicious
reddit
MySpace
StumbleUpon
LinkedIn
|
It is rather ironic that in a world where war possibly evolved at a breakneck pace, the video games that emulate them spent a lot of time being stuck in a time capsule more than half a century old. Evolution eventually, and thankfully, caught up, and military shooters have finally branched out to newer conflicts, alternate reality, fiction and out-and-out nonsensical military drama (Yes, I'm looking at you Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2). At this point, a question begs to be asked. How important is the single player campaign in shooters anyway, especially when we've been conditioned to ignore the story aspect of such games in favor of a meaty multiplayer component? It is relevant for the potential that has gone mostly ignored in other military shooters, which prioritize globe-trotting across exotic locales and explosive vehicular segments over a thoughtful story. Danger Close has to be applauded for not falling into these irresistible traps. Medal of Honor, by contrast, takes place exclusively in the hilly terrains of Afghanistan, telling the story of the conflict from the perspective of three individuals. The story might begin like any other shooter, but it slowly evolves from why nations go to war to why soldiers go to war. The game’s biggest achievement is that it leaves you with something to ponder, if only for a moment. That is more than most shooters have done in recent times. That is not to say that Medal of Honor does not feature variety, but its variety is dictated more by circumstances you find yourself in than fantastic set pieces. In one level, you’ll be long distance sniping targets your squad mate points out on a hill almost a kilometer away. In another, you’ll make a desperate final stand against impossible odds. Not only do such situations kick up the much needed variety in the single-player campaign, but they also differentiate the game from its competitors by never taking the game too far away from its primary protagonists. All this adds up to a tight, coherent and rather enjoyable, if not spectacular, five to seven hour-long campaign. The campaign is accompanied by some exceptional sound effects and background score. Everything from radio chatter to the sound of bullets that whizz by you is just right. And the background score is used appropriately at the right moments; never interfering, and always rising and ebbing according to the situation. For example, in the final stand I mentioned earlier, the score kicks in at just the right moment to highlight the hopelessness of the situation. It’s a shame, however, that the same level of commendation cannot be extended to the graphics. They are inconsistent to say the least, with some very ugly textures thrown in with the more detailed ones, giving the game an inconsistent look. There are also a few technical and design issues that take away from the immersion factor. Our biggest gripe with the game is invisible walls. It’s very hard to believe that a bullet that can pierce the flesh and bone of a man cannot damage a lantern or a plank of wood blocking a path just because you’re not supposed to go there. The game also relies on triggers, where the appearance or position of a certain enemy moves the game forward. At a couple of instances, these triggers simply failed to register. These issues, however, are minor, and the campaign is definitely worth a couple of playthroughs. The same cannot be said about the game’s multiplayer, which is a shame really, because it was handled by DICE. It tries to be the best of both worlds - the strategic and tactical gameplay of Battlefield: Bad Company 2 along with the twitchy frantic pace of Modern Warfare 2, but falls in the uncomfortable neither-here-nor-there space instead. We haven’t seen such camper-friendly maps in a long time. To add to that, it only takes a couple of bullets to take a player down and there’s no kill-cam either, so the multiplayer is extremely unbalanced and unfriendly for new players. With little variety in classes, and a limited suite of features that doesn’t hold a candle to the upcoming competition, it’s a big disappointment considering the talent behind it. That said, any game, shooter or otherwise, should be able to stand on the strength of its single-player campaign, and Medal of Honor holds up well enough in that department. Unfortunately, that alone will not take it to the top of the shooter pile, and it is the multiplayer component that is mediocre to an extent where it will soon be forgotten. |
Tags: Medal Of Honor , Xbox 360 , PS3 , PC
Would you buy it?
RELATED STORIES
Medal of Honor: Warfighter gets trailer
Check out the very first trailer of EA's latest Medal of Honor game.
Medal of Honor: Warfighter uncovered
Asus to unveil 'Kinect enabled' notebooks soon
Ghost Recon Future Soldier delayed
Game of the Year 2011 - Racing
Game of the Year 2011 - RPG (Role Playing Game)
Game of the Year 2011 - First Person Shooter (FPS)
776 views
_011517074205_160x90.jpg "Epson Stylus Photo R3000")
