EA's shooter offers plenty of sound and fury, but does it signify anything? We round up the reviews so far.
If US military communications really do consist entirely of macho banter interspersed with arcane technical jargon, Medal of Honor is certainly the most authentic shooter ever developed. A couple of missions in to the fraught single-player campaign and your brain will be awash with red phosphorous, danger close warnings and talk of swarming 'bad guys'. What you won't gain, however, is any new understanding of what American troops are actually doing out there in the graveyard of empires.
As we've been led to believe over months of pre-release briefings, the game presents the armed forces with a form of unquestioning respect that borders on religious adulation. But the actions of these Tier 1 operatives, army rangers and SEALs exist in a complete contextual vacuum. We don't know why we're hiking through the unforgiving peaks and gritty troughs of the Shahikot Valley, we're just there, taking out mortar positions and villages like machines of death. As Tom Bramwell writes in his excellent review for Eurogamer:
Whereas films like The Hurt Locker evade accusations of insensitivity through their dispassionate and meticulous observations of the conflicts they portray, Medal of Honor ostensibly dodges the issue by not really being about anything except what's happening on-screen.
In the cut-scenes, there is some sort of conflict going on between a commander passing out politically motivated orders from back in the States and an officer in-country, trying to save the lives of his comrades. It's clumsy, clich�-ridden stuff, that does the solidly portrayed action no favours at all.
And make no mistake, this is a rugged, bloody and at times brilliant shooter, in which you find yourself continually penned down in crumbling buildings facing off against dozens of charging insurgents. With the dust swirling, the camera shaking, the body parts exploding into red mist, this is gaming re-imagined as documentary footage. It is Generation Kill rendered into savage interactive life. And when the engine chugs ? as it does when you're strafing crowded enemy positions with 50 cal fire ? it's like a live satellite feed breaking up. That doesn't make it any less noticeable or frustrating, but it does conveniently segue into the simulacrum of reality and Boy's Own fiction that developer Danger Close is peddling.
Several reviewers, though, point out the jarring tonal inconsistencies. There's an amazing moment early on when you and three comrades are surrounded by enemy soldiers with just the low walls of a deserted hut for cover. Gradually, the masculine chit-chat gives way to desperation and then acceptance ? Andrew Hayward at 1up calls it, "one of the most exciting and terrifying moments I can recall from any recent shooter". But there are also moments in which your lusty band of inglorious bastards swot away rapidly spawning idiot troopers like flies. As IGN's Arthur Gies writes, "Medal of Honor is so heavily dependent on canned war moments and setpieces that it starts to feel like the Theme Park tour of the war in Afghanistan, rather than a respectful trip through a day in the life of a soldier."
There are also lots of complaints about the malfunctioning scripted sequences. Often you'll charge ahead of colleagues, only to hear them instructing you on the objectives you've just carried out. Other times you'll be stalled for many minutes as you try to locate the spot you need to be in to trigger the next sequence. "Major events are heavily signposted," adds Martin Gaston on Videogamer, "And too many instances place you behind invisible walls (or in front of a door that only your AI sidekick can open) until you've dispatched the current screen of baddies."
Elsewhere, it's generally agreed that the audio is superb, perfectly capturing everything from the echoing clatter of the AK-47 to the pin-point thud of a high calibre sniper rifle. The crackly voice comms between soldiers is so naturalistic, you're almost there ? if only you could understand half of what they were talking about.
Multiplayer gets a mixed reception. General consensus seems to be that it's robust, but lacks variety, with only three soldier classes and four modes. Like other publications, Edge draws comparisons with DICE's Battlefield series: "It feels more varied in its scenarios than recent Battlefield games, its various modes moving adeptly between claustrophobic deathmatches, open battlegrounds and epic tugs-of-war. But without Battlefield's wealth of vehicles, devastating toys and destructible scenery, MOH lacks some of that game's moment- to-moment dynamism."
Judging by the defensive comments coming out of EA yesterday, the company feels that the current Metacritic rating of 74 is rather harsh. I'm inclined to concur (given the proclivity of many sites to use 70 as average), and I've most closely agreed with the writers who have given the game 75% or more. For all its flaws, Medal of Honor reaches some exhilarating heights, and Danger Close is Kubrick-like in its quest for perfect composition, mood and audio detail. This is a game that's fundamentally worth playing. Is it better than Modern Warfare 2? As good? Worse? The two experiences are aiming at very different targets. Clearly, MoH lacks the absurdist drama of Infinity Ward's globe-trotting fantasy, but at least its slight tale of valiant soldiers makes some sort of sense, even if it stops way short of making any sort of point.
Medal of Honor is released this Friday on PC, PS3 and Xbox 360. The Guardian's own review is here.
UNISYS TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR TRIMBLE NAVIGATION LIMITED TRIDENT MICROSYSTEMS
No comments:
Post a Comment