Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Medal of Honor: Airborne Review

Last response: in Video Games
Share
September 20, 2007 4:10:54 PM

Review written by Rob Wright.

The latest Medal of Honor game represents an earnest attempt by Electronic Arts to bring something new to the World War II shooter genre, but some puzzling design flaws negate the title's intense action and gorgeous graphics.

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2007/09/20/medal_of_honor/
September 20, 2007 8:00:10 PM

I dont understand all the negative review surrounding this game. I Bought it for the PC and love it. I have beatin it on 2 different difficulties and I rarely ever make it through the single player of a game even once. I am now playing the multiplayer, though I havent been able to play in a week because of school I do have one problem as of the last time I played. They didnt and maybe still dont have any dedicated servers up for online play, but they will soon from what I have read so it is not that big of a deal I give it an 8.5 out of 10 for my personal rating Would be a 9, but with the lack of dedi's to begin with an no AA video options I had to drop it slightly lower, the gameplay makes up for everything else imo), but I would say the average rating from mags and review websites just right around where Rob put it @ 7 - 7.5 or so.

Best,

3Ball
September 20, 2007 9:17:56 PM

Damn that games was fun.....short but still worth a play...
Related resources
September 20, 2007 9:40:41 PM

Yes, the lack of a dedicated server completely blows. I can take a while to get multiplayer going.

Did you guys notice any of the physics or hit detection issues I wrote about? I played it again today and saw some truly weird stuff where dead NPCs were bouncing around like elastic bands. I capped the sniper at the top of the church -- blew him out the window with my shotty! --and his feet stayed in the church while the rest of his stretched out on to the roof like he was Mr. Fantastic or something. Just strange. I should have snapped a screenshot....


September 20, 2007 10:11:10 PM

yes....
I sometimes got bad guys hands stuck and the body fell/flew and the arm stretched out all flat like....

I did not get to play online. its my brothers game and the way DRM is now i did not even make an account....just played to see if i would get a lag mentioned on the forums....just happened to beat it during this time....

When servers are out and good i will buy the game...reinstall to get my key in and away i will go....
September 21, 2007 12:03:59 AM

Seriously I usually don't say anything about your reviews, because you're onto something most of the time, but you are way off with this one. I too for one thought that nothing could top CoD2 and then Airborne comes, the game is downright amazing, I don't know why are you complaining about the whole crosshair thing, if anything it's better this way, you can either horribly miss or accurately hit your target, how so? Shoot in SHORT BURSTS! Don't go full auto! But then again you must do this on nearly every other shooter.

Game graphics and effects? I did notice the physics thing you said, but it really didn't distract me all that much, since I was too worried about shooting the other 10 enemies rather than looking at the dead one. Graphics were gorgeous, and FINALLY someone got the motion blur RIGHT! I really hope shooters from now on start to do the same and calibrate the motion blur properly like they did on Airborne, I'm absolutely loving this feature.

If you think the game's AI is too weak, then play on hard, but then again there's really NO POINT in playing below normal on this game, in order to make up for the short single player campaign (This is where we see eye to eye, it was too short). Anyway, I'm sure the Nazi Elites will give you a run for your money (Unless you start abusing gammon grenades and Panzerschrecks), especially on hard.

And finally, about the Slow motion thing, it is obviously done for you to read what you got from the upgrade without pausing the damn game (Which in my opinion is even more annoying), I really loved this thing too, it helped get those damned nazi elites (or any other enemy) down in times of need (And this happened more often than not).

All in all, I think this game could've used a bit more of fine tuning and a longer (WAY LONGER) single player campaign, but it was truly an amazing game to play (Didn't expect this from EA). Finally another game got that same WW2 itch that Call of Duty 2 had.

My rating: 8/10 (Only because of the Multiplayer)

Note: Do yourself a favor, play this one on the PC, this is a MUST play shooter for the PC, it's just not going to be the same on a console, believe me.
September 21, 2007 1:07:56 AM

LOL gammon grenades kicked ass....i mean in the last lvl toss it by the aa guns and all guys and the gun go BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

Also my best friend for those elite bastards was the shot gun....bang bang bang bang bang bang in the back....
September 21, 2007 1:46:53 AM

robwright said:
Yes, the lack of a dedicated server completely blows. I can take a while to get multiplayer going.

Did you guys notice any of the physics or hit detection issues I wrote about? I played it again today and saw some truly weird stuff where dead NPCs were bouncing around like elastic bands. I capped the sniper at the top of the church -- blew him out the window with my shotty! --and his feet stayed in the church while the rest of his stretched out on to the roof like he was Mr. Fantastic or something. Just strange. I should have snapped a screenshot....


I suppose that I see some of the physic problems, but I dont believe I have had any problems with the hit detection, but on my next run through I will make sure to look out for it.

Best,

3Ball
September 21, 2007 6:03:28 AM

I have only played the demo, and it runs like absolute crap on my system. I run at absolute minimum graphics with res at 1024x768. I get around 60-70FPS when there is nobody around and I am at an "invisible barrier" :kaola:  but as soon as I get more than 2 guys around, boom, down to low-mid 20's. Where you assault the big building with 2 AA guns on it, I get mid teens to low 20's. I also found that shooting somebody with a colt .45 was humourous because they flew :lol: 

Hit detection problems, can't say I remember them, maybe... Actually come to think of it, the rifles are pretty inaccurate when going for headshots while aiming down the sights.
September 21, 2007 12:03:03 PM

robwright said:
Yes, the lack of a dedicated server completely blows. I can take a while to get multiplayer going.

Did you guys notice any of the physics or hit detection issues I wrote about? I played it again today and saw some truly weird stuff where dead NPCs were bouncing around like elastic bands. I capped the sniper at the top of the church -- blew him out the window with my shotty! --and his feet stayed in the church while the rest of his stretched out on to the roof like he was Mr. Fantastic or something. Just strange. I should have snapped a screenshot....


I agree with almost everything you said in the article, about the flaws and all, but that still did not keep me from enjoying the game.
I had a hard time adjusting to the hit detection system (and yes you're right about that, even on the PC), but an hour later I was scoring headshots (after an hour of having my ass kicked). They either have a poor hit detection system as you said, or deliberately implemented a sort of realistic way of shooting. I guess if this was real life, not every shot you take would actually hit your target, and plus lets not forget the recoil the guns produce, so that will definitely cause more imprecision.
The AI was mostly bad, but it had its moments. Seeing as the last WWII game I played was CoD2, that was kind of disappointing. In CoD, at least your teammates were helpful, whereas in MoH:A, they're mostly not. And I hate it when the enemy AI focuses all its attention on you, as if you were the only one in the battlefield.
I actually found the ragdoll physics pretty amusing, good for a laugh, but they should've worked on it a bit more.
Regardless, it's an entertaining game (and that's what games are about: entertainment), with pretty visuals and sounds, and overall a good action game even with its flaws.


randomizer said:
I have only played the demo, and it runs like absolute crap on my system. I run at absolute minimum graphics with res at 1024x768. I get around 60-70FPS when there is nobody around and I am at an "invisible barrier" :kaola:  but as soon as I get more than 2 guys around, boom, down to low-mid 20's. Where you assault the big building with 2 AA guns on it, I get mid teens to low 20's.


What are your specs?
I'm running it on an e6600, 2gb ram, and an x1900xt 512 averaging 40-60 fps on 1280x800. It rarely ever drops below 30.

September 22, 2007 1:31:40 AM

A64 3700
x1950 pro 256mb
2Gb RAM (1x1gb and 2x512Mb) but even just having 2 sticks doesnt make a difference (if it does, it is a negative difference)

What settings are you running?
September 22, 2007 4:10:49 AM

Well there's something definitely wrong with your computer, it may not be the top dog around, but it should run this game just fine! In fact I think this game is considerably easier on the system than bioshock is.
September 22, 2007 4:13:34 AM

Well my 3dmark scores show the same problem.

05: 92xx cant remember exactly
06: 4250
September 22, 2007 10:22:01 AM

The system we tested on was the ava direct dual boot we just reviewed. I can pull the specs on it if you want.

This game is the most extreme example of good gameplay, short game I've ever seen. The freedom of choosing where and how you approach most objectives in the open field is something I want all future fps game designers to see and play. It's more subtle than giving two or three different routes to choose from.

On the other hand, I finished all six levels on normal and hard in under two days, and it's not as if there's a huge number of mutiplayer maps to make up the difference.

At least, EA's habit of infinite sequels will insure that we will see more of this gameplay in the future.
September 22, 2007 11:16:07 AM

The problem with EA is all of their infinite sequels are infinitely buggy (particularly the battlefield series), and if they can't fix the bugs in 4-5 patches, they dump support of the game and make a new one.
September 22, 2007 3:23:51 PM

This game rocks, while it lasts. Its a very short game. I think the reviewer played a different version of the game than the rest of us... I found that I had perfect control on where I wanted to land, I never ran into "invisible barriers" while landing. The control over the character is good too. This is an excellent game and there are no flaws even remotely large enough that would take the focus off of the fun that this game is.

This game runs beautifully, I never drop below 40 fps, I have all the settings maxed @ 1024x768. I am running: Athlon 64 X2 4600 - 2GB DDR800 - 8600GTS.

Oh and Emp I agree with your comment completely, when I saw a little negativity in this review I was like wtf, I had to post my own ยข2 which I rarely do also.
September 22, 2007 11:02:48 PM

randomizer said:
A64 3700
x1950 pro 256mb
2Gb RAM (1x1gb and 2x512Mb) but even just having 2 sticks doesnt make a difference (if it does, it is a negative difference)

What settings are you running?


I'm running everything on highest settings.
There has got to be something wrong with your PC... an x1950 pro should do very well with this game.

September 23, 2007 1:30:24 AM

how will my machine run medal of honor airbourne
amd opteron 2.2ghz overclocked 2 2.222ghz i no not much
i gig of corsair
asus atix1950pro256mbpcie
3 hardrives 530gig in total dont no if this make any differance
im useing a nforce 4 ultra mobo
i can run bioshock with no lag as long as i set the texture detail 2 medium
!