By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Medal of Honor get a 6!

tuscaniman said:
GodOfWar_3ever said:

Relax...

Gamesradar - 8

SixthAxis - 8

Joystick - 4/5

GT - 8.1

Game Informer - 7

Kotaku - http://kotaku.com/5659329/review-medal-of-honor

Its a good game...no need to call it "shit" or "bad game". You'd probably enjoy it if you're a shooter fan, unlike me.

Yeah those are the best scores it has gotten. Remember when Reach was released and all those 10s and 9.5s started rolling out at the start? Just wait for more 6s and some 5s it will most definately recieve. I predict meta in the low 70s.

no need comparing it to reach, compare it to cod, and if this is crap game, then activision are paying millions to reviewers to keep cod from getting 5s and and 4s and 6s and 7s.



Being in 3rd place never felt so good

Around the Network
zgamer5 said:
tuscaniman said:
zgamer5 said:
GodOfWar_3ever said:
Boutros said:

Nowgamer gave the 360 version 6.6 and the PS3 version 8.6. That website is a joke.

lolfuckingwutdahellomggzzzz ?

lol

I'm sure its a good game... IGN like to give good games 6s and 7s.... either way, it has nearly 800k pre-orders in America...its gonna sell a shitload.


ea can kiss bye bye to its legs.


I don't think there were ever going to be legs in the first place. Once Black Ops releases nobody will even remember this game was released.

true but their was a chance of it having battlefield like legs.

Yeah that makes sense.



Nsanity said:
Boutros said:

Nowgamer gave the 360 version 6.6 and the PS3 version 8.6. That website is a joke.


hate to bring up this fanboy crap, but Nowgamer are well known for favoring PS3.


You shouldn't accuse a site of being fanboys when you pretty much know nothing about how it works. They have a reviewer per platform for every multi-platform that comes out. Someone thought it was worth a 6.6 on the 360 and a different person thought it was worth an 8.6 on the PS3.



Bet with Conegamer and AussieGecko that the PS3 will have more exclusives in 2011 than the Wii or 360... or something.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3879752

zgamer5 said:
tuscaniman said:
GodOfWar_3ever said:

Relax...

Gamesradar - 8

SixthAxis - 8

Joystick - 4/5

GT - 8.1

Game Informer - 7

Kotaku - http://kotaku.com/5659329/review-medal-of-honor

Its a good game...no need to call it "shit" or "bad game". You'd probably enjoy it if you're a shooter fan, unlike me.

Yeah those are the best scores it has gotten. Remember when Reach was released and all those 10s and 9.5s started rolling out at the start? Just wait for more 6s and some 5s it will most definately recieve. I predict meta in the low 70s.

no need comparing it to reach, compare it to cod, and if this is crap game, then activision are paying millions to reviewers to keep cod from getting 5s and and 4s and 6s and 7s.

I'm not comparing it to Reach. I'm comparing the review timetable to Reach's review timetable. Starts out high and the bad ones always come in later.



@zgamer  the single player pissed me off so bad i never got into the multi aspect.  im old school, i believe a game should stand on its single player alone. so if a game has bad single player I most likely wont be happy about the multi. I think my rank is like 20. pretty low considering how long the game's been out. multi could be mindless fun but honestly rather play uncharted 2 multi. hell Id rather play Bioshock2 multi, dont care what no one says and lets not get started on the spec ops



Around the Network
tuscaniman said:
zgamer5 said:
tuscaniman said:
GodOfWar_3ever said:

Relax...

Gamesradar - 8

SixthAxis - 8

Joystick - 4/5

GT - 8.1

Game Informer - 7

Kotaku - http://kotaku.com/5659329/review-medal-of-honor

Its a good game...no need to call it "shit" or "bad game". You'd probably enjoy it if you're a shooter fan, unlike me.

Yeah those are the best scores it has gotten. Remember when Reach was released and all those 10s and 9.5s started rolling out at the start? Just wait for more 6s and some 5s it will most definately recieve. I predict meta in the low 70s.

no need comparing it to reach, compare it to cod, and if this is crap game, then activision are paying millions to reviewers to keep cod from getting 5s and and 4s and 6s and 7s.

I'm not comparing it to Reach. I'm comparing the review timetable to Reach's review timetable. Starts out high and the bad ones always come in later.


i know, im just saying it seems like you just played reach then tried moh and started bashing about how bad it is. im not saying i dont kinda agree with the score, but theirs no need calling the game a piece of shit.



Being in 3rd place never felt so good

oniyide said:

@zgamer  the single player pissed me off so bad i never got into the multi aspect.  im old school, i believe a game should stand on its single player alone. so if a game has bad single player I most likely wont be happy about the multi. I think my rank is like 20. pretty low considering how long the game's been out. multi could be mindless fun but honestly rather play uncharted 2 multi. hell Id rather play Bioshock2 multi, dont care what no one says and lets not get started on the spec ops


mw2 sucks ass. the sad part here is that the cod series is praised, while when moh copies its aspects in some ways it gets decent or bad reviews. really shows you how devs can buy critical sucess.



Being in 3rd place never felt so good

The beta was fun. Nothing special though.



zgamer5 said:
tuscaniman said:
zgamer5 said:
tuscaniman said:
GodOfWar_3ever said:

Relax...

Gamesradar - 8

SixthAxis - 8

Joystick - 4/5

GT - 8.1

Game Informer - 7

Kotaku - http://kotaku.com/5659329/review-medal-of-honor

Its a good game...no need to call it "shit" or "bad game". You'd probably enjoy it if you're a shooter fan, unlike me.

Yeah those are the best scores it has gotten. Remember when Reach was released and all those 10s and 9.5s started rolling out at the start? Just wait for more 6s and some 5s it will most definately recieve. I predict meta in the low 70s.

no need comparing it to reach, compare it to cod, and if this is crap game, then activision are paying millions to reviewers to keep cod from getting 5s and and 4s and 6s and 7s.

I'm not comparing it to Reach. I'm comparing the review timetable to Reach's review timetable. Starts out high and the bad ones always come in later.


i know, im just saying it seems like you just played reach then tried moh and started bashing about how bad it is. im not saying i dont kinda agree with the score, but theirs no need calling the game a piece of shit.


Dude I haven't played the retail release of MOH, I played the Beta. And Halo cannot be compared to a "realistic" war type shooter. If you don't believe me then go buy the game and play it for yourself. And if I believed what I played was a piece of shit then its a piece of shit. I'll change my wording for you sensitive types though. The beta was not good at all and from what I read on this review it has not been changed.



Doobie_wop said:

 Outside of the technical issues, it sounds like COD, except the MOH campaign is actually longer and seems pretty decent.


The campaign is about 4 hours long, so its shorter than cod's campaign. But the overall atmosphere and staging is very good. It's near cod quality :)

So if you plan to buy this game just for singleplayer i recommend you wait till its cheaper or just rent it... $60 for about 4 hours is just way too much...



Video: Samsung 37" LCD, Topfield 7700HSCI (HD-Sat), Denon DVD-2500BT (BluRay), Denon DVD-1940 (DVD)
Audio: Teufel System 5 THX @ Denon AVR 1910
Consoles: Homebrew Xbox 360 (500GB), Xbox 360 Slim (4GB) + Kinect, Homebrew Nintendo Wii, Homebrew Playstation 3 Slim (250GB)

A hero need not speak. When he is gone, the world will speak for him - BELIEVE