I know the rap on Medal of Honor is that its unoriginal and uninventive, but I think the single player is actually pretty good. Its truethe games not Kirby or Epic Mickey, so if youre not into military corridor shooters, youre not going to care. Still, though, I think its true. And heres why I think so.
1. Medal of Honor feels like a cohesive, two-day campaign against a real enemy in a real location. I think Danger Close does a very good job of presenting the campaign as an actual campaign. While they do the character jumping that Infinity Ward has made their calling card, they do an extremely consistent job of linking all of the events in the game and keeping them in a believable sequence (as Infinity Ward did). The locations string together nicely and share a cohesive art style and presentation. Theres a believable sort of mise en place to the entire game, and I appreciate that. By comparison, CODBLOPS feels like a string of connected hallways with little holding the game together excepting the (awful) narrative.
2. While Medal of Honors narrative feels lazy and maybe even exploitative, its never stupidly insulting like CODBLOPS plot. And the characters arent bad. Medal of Honor starts very strong and only starts to make my skin crawl when Danger Close introduces the Evil American Politician marching all of troops (whom I am sure he Does Not Support) into harms way with little regard for their concern. The game makes me feel like Im part of a small unit of guys that are very close to one another. Mother, Preacher, Voodoo, and Rabbit are a machine, and their relative lack of non-combat related dialog stops them from coming across as retarded. I mean, the dialog is really bad, so they are still often retarded, but on the whole I sort of enjoyed the camaraderie. CODBLOPS narrative is completely nonsensical, dropping the awkward war worship of the previous MW games and replacing it with something even more embarrassing. And using Creedence is actually way more lazy than anything Danger Close does.
3. While both games are overscripted, Medal of Honor hides it better. This isnt to say it hides it extremely well. Fundamentally were playing the same style of game. But this game feels so much less movielike. Its cinematic without being automatic. At the same time, I like how the AI coordinates through the dialog to make the player feel like he or she is unfurling the script instead of simply experiencing it. When Mother says, Loud on Rabbit, you get to trigger the script. It makes me feel like I am actually causing something to happen in the world that has consequences. CODBLOPS has (entire sequences of the game you can play without doing anything notwithstanding) a tougher time hiding its scripts because it goes way more over the top.
4. Speaking of over the top, Medal of Honor feels more realistic. Both games are completely unrealistic, but Medal of Honor uses its cohesive setting and art style to present a believable world with believable characters doing believable things. If only you didnt shoot so many damn people. The team is not a bunch of Legendary Badasses. Theyre just dudes with beards. Dudebros, if you will. I like the more realistic lighting and color palette of Medal of Honor.
5. The teammate AI in Medal of Honor actually gets it right. The teammates are powerful without advancing too far without you. They can take out guys on their own, and they will. Woods is retarded.
6. The mechanics are at least as fundamentally sound. Danger Close made a big mistake not going 60 FPS, but given that they used UE3, the game runs and looks fine. The guns feel heavy and the ADS mechanic is basically the same in both games. Theres a nice headshot indicator that pops up in MoH when you get a headshot. I wont complain about Call of Dutyobviously the formula works.
7. The level design in Medal of Honor is better and more varied despite similar settings. I think Medal of Honor does a lot with changing lighting conditions, elevation, and enemy placement to make each level feel unique. It even does a stealth level really well! By letting the player control the pace at which the scripts occur, stealth is pretty easy and theres not really a penalty for failing. But youll feel cool if you do it well. The game just utilizes the setting well. You get what you expect in the Afghani mountain ranges. And, of course, I think the gameplay itself is varied and thats nice.
The multiplayer is a separate discussion. I dont really know enough about multiplayer to break them down intelligently, so I wont. But I like the single player. And I think most Call of Duty fans would too.
1. Medal of Honor feels like a cohesive, two-day campaign against a real enemy in a real location. I think Danger Close does a very good job of presenting the campaign as an actual campaign. While they do the character jumping that Infinity Ward has made their calling card, they do an extremely consistent job of linking all of the events in the game and keeping them in a believable sequence (as Infinity Ward did). The locations string together nicely and share a cohesive art style and presentation. Theres a believable sort of mise en place to the entire game, and I appreciate that. By comparison, CODBLOPS feels like a string of connected hallways with little holding the game together excepting the (awful) narrative.
2. While Medal of Honors narrative feels lazy and maybe even exploitative, its never stupidly insulting like CODBLOPS plot. And the characters arent bad. Medal of Honor starts very strong and only starts to make my skin crawl when Danger Close introduces the Evil American Politician marching all of troops (whom I am sure he Does Not Support) into harms way with little regard for their concern. The game makes me feel like Im part of a small unit of guys that are very close to one another. Mother, Preacher, Voodoo, and Rabbit are a machine, and their relative lack of non-combat related dialog stops them from coming across as retarded. I mean, the dialog is really bad, so they are still often retarded, but on the whole I sort of enjoyed the camaraderie. CODBLOPS narrative is completely nonsensical, dropping the awkward war worship of the previous MW games and replacing it with something even more embarrassing. And using Creedence is actually way more lazy than anything Danger Close does.
3. While both games are overscripted, Medal of Honor hides it better. This isnt to say it hides it extremely well. Fundamentally were playing the same style of game. But this game feels so much less movielike. Its cinematic without being automatic. At the same time, I like how the AI coordinates through the dialog to make the player feel like he or she is unfurling the script instead of simply experiencing it. When Mother says, Loud on Rabbit, you get to trigger the script. It makes me feel like I am actually causing something to happen in the world that has consequences. CODBLOPS has (entire sequences of the game you can play without doing anything notwithstanding) a tougher time hiding its scripts because it goes way more over the top.
4. Speaking of over the top, Medal of Honor feels more realistic. Both games are completely unrealistic, but Medal of Honor uses its cohesive setting and art style to present a believable world with believable characters doing believable things. If only you didnt shoot so many damn people. The team is not a bunch of Legendary Badasses. Theyre just dudes with beards. Dudebros, if you will. I like the more realistic lighting and color palette of Medal of Honor.
5. The teammate AI in Medal of Honor actually gets it right. The teammates are powerful without advancing too far without you. They can take out guys on their own, and they will. Woods is retarded.
6. The mechanics are at least as fundamentally sound. Danger Close made a big mistake not going 60 FPS, but given that they used UE3, the game runs and looks fine. The guns feel heavy and the ADS mechanic is basically the same in both games. Theres a nice headshot indicator that pops up in MoH when you get a headshot. I wont complain about Call of Dutyobviously the formula works.
7. The level design in Medal of Honor is better and more varied despite similar settings. I think Medal of Honor does a lot with changing lighting conditions, elevation, and enemy placement to make each level feel unique. It even does a stealth level really well! By letting the player control the pace at which the scripts occur, stealth is pretty easy and theres not really a penalty for failing. But youll feel cool if you do it well. The game just utilizes the setting well. You get what you expect in the Afghani mountain ranges. And, of course, I think the gameplay itself is varied and thats nice.
The multiplayer is a separate discussion. I dont really know enough about multiplayer to break them down intelligently, so I wont. But I like the single player. And I think most Call of Duty fans would too.
