User Reviews (1 - 11 of 42)

Show these reviews first:

Highest Rated
Lowest Rated Newest
Oldest Most Helpful
Least Helpful

dont waste your money

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 5 / 11
Date: June 25, 2005
Author: Amazon User

As a consumer of all the EA Franchise, I was highly disappointed with the latest release. No saving, difficult controls, etc,,,,After attempts to get through various parts of the game, I decided that having to repeat my last 20 min of progress was simply not worth my time. For the first time, I bought the game the day of release. I returned it the next.

the kind of game when ya wanna brake the controller

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 3 / 7
Date: June 22, 2005
Author: Amazon User

When i got this game o was so excited as i had played the first medal of honor: Frontline, which was an awesome game, this game is so crappy, it's unbelievable, graphics are N64 compatible, voices are all of sync with the person who's talking, oh and dont even get me started on the controlles for the game, they are so messed up, you will spend half the time you play the game just trying to figure out how to play it, overall this game is just another one of those games that ends up with a broken controller.

They Should Have Ignored the Critics

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 2 / 7
Date: September 23, 2005
Author: Amazon User

It looks like EA games put too much stock in reviewers of the previous MOH series. Medal of Honor, Rising Sun, was badgered by complaints of "no strategy" and stupid enemy AI. Even still, it became a Playstation 2 "greatest hits."

Many of us who like FPS games aren't interested in stealth, tactics etc. We want guns, bullets, and more guns. Rather than more complicated game play, this game could have been helped by

1.) More intense violence.

2.) Bigger, better explosions.

3.) More gunfire.

4.) Better graphics.

Having to keep other troops alive is just a pain in the rear, IMHO. The European theatre is getting old as well. I'd like to see a bigger, better version of what Rising Sun tried to accomplish. That is, fighting in the WWII pacific theatre.

Another mediocre offering

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 1 / 7
Date: June 11, 2005
Author: Amazon User

EA really sucks these days. They just make a bunch of mediocre sequels with minimal improvement, and set the marketing machine in motion. That is what they did for European Assault. The original MOH was good for its time, but with the capabilities of the PS2, this game should be much better. It isn't. This is a game that is lacking in both of the key aspects of any game, the single-player and the multiplayer modes. There is only one short single player campaign, and it isn't that great. Really, the only good campaign this game had was the marketing campaign. So that leaves the multiplayer, the heart and soul of any good shooter, and the weakest part of this one. The multiplayer aspects of this game are very limited. There are very few weapons and characters and you cannot unlock more in single player. There are only a few game modes, and there is no online support or networking support. The only way to play against your friends is with old school split-screen. It seems there has been little progress in this series since the original MOH came out for the PS1.

they can definitly do better

1 Rating: 1, Useful: 0 / 2
Date: May 16, 2007
Author: Amazon User

okay so the graphics are descent but this game irritates me because of the historical inaccuracy. since when was there an american in a British comando unit. and in the africa campaign they would be no way they would ever let an american in to the desert rats. they were completly british. and in russia they didn't even trust the americans never have probably never will. and the game posts no dificulty i beat it an two hours. okay before you say i have no life you should rent it and see how easy it is. its too simple. if you like games where you go around killing things and games that have no point this game is for you.

No save, no bots, no co-op, no online, no AI -- No thanks!

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 102 / 113
Date: June 19, 2005
Author: Amazon User

This is just a rushed game, plain and simple. This feels like a game that would have been a good starting point, but not a game in the later part of a console cycle with a great pedigree as Medal of Honor. The bargain price and lack of advertisement sort of confirms the amount of effort used to produce the game.

The first thing that shocked me was no mid-mission saving or checkpoints. Huh? Did I suddenly get transported to the mid nineties? If so, remind me to buy some stock and housing. You die in the end of an hour long mission, you start the hour long mission from the very beginning! The only reason any game would not have constant saves is to mask the lack of playable levels by making the gamer repeat stuff over and over again. And, yes, that is the case here. What's really shameful is that the previous game in this series actually did have saves. I was near the end of the last level, about to complete the game when I died by a surprise rush of people. I am not going to waste another 50 minutes of my life to work on five minutes of gaming.

The other things that this game lacked that the previous game (Rising Sun) had is online and co-op play. There is a multiplayer, but there are no robots. So, unless you have a multi-tap, it's one on one. That is not much of a multiplayer at all.

There only 11 levels total. The first 6 are really just half the length of the latter 5. The look of the levels are usually dreary and monocolor at best (brown for the desert levels, white for the last 5 snow levels), and are just really dull. All in all, if you played all levels well and never had to repeat any part of a level, you'd have a grand total of about 7 hours of game play. Making this a rental if you really want to play this.

Other problems also exist in the game play. The first is that for some reason, after killing a person, ammo will appear but disappear really soon. This leaves the player with a dilemma, run to the ammo and die in the open, or really have no ammo and be a sitting duck. The squad that you "control" is a laughable joke. The AI that controls it is terrible. You will be hiding, pinned down, and your three squad mates will run around like head-less chickens right in front of machine gun fire. Complete idiots. Also, there are other bad aspects, like the introducing a cliched boss. Don't get me started on the tedium of grenade throwing. Random times, the aiming just would not work. Up close shooting is terrible. Many times, enemies will sometimes shrug off direct hits. I could go on and on.

There are some good points though. Levels 8, 9, 10, are actually pretty playable - well designed and somewhat fun. The sound is amazing. The game mechanics are spot on. Individually, the controls reward cautious, thoughtful game play. Given a few more months of development and fine tuning, a great game could have been produced. The game engine is there.

Pros:
Good general playing mechanics
Good sound
Good engine

Cons:
No save at any point of the mission
No co-op
No online
Horrible squad mates
Not many missions
Disappearing ammos/Lack of ammo
Monochrome like levels
Bad aiming
Bosses, why?

Hours to complete - 12 hours

Frustration Level (on normal) - High

Difficulty (on normal) - Medium/High

Latest in popular series encourages loyalty -- and strategy -- but this is still war.

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 5 / 5
Date: August 22, 2005
Author: Amazon User

MEDAL OF HONOR: EUROPEAN ASSAULT focuses on an agent of the Office of Strategic Services, the Naval division that would become the CIA. Players fight their way through the battlefields of the European Theater -- France, North Africa, Russia and Belgium -- undermining German defenses and collecting intelligence on the enemy's new weapons systems. Players also lead a three-man squad to help get the job done, directing them to take cover, engage the enemy, or retreat as the situation demands.

Sure, a war game is going to contain violence, and Medal of Honor: European Assault is on par with the industry's standard approach to WWII shooters: allow players to kill plenty of enemies, but don't call undue attention to their deaths with lots of blood and gore. Bodies evaporate from the battlefield leaving only ammo and health power-ups as a memorial.

While parents should be aware of the game's violence, they should take some solace in its intellectual demands. European Assault moves at a more methodical pace, preventing players from mindlessly rushing enemy positions and rewarding thoughtful, strategic progress.

Electronic Art's Medal of Honor series has covered a lot of ground since it's inception in 1999. Players have had the opportunity to see Pearl Harbor, D-Day, Guadalcanal and more from the perspective of a foot soldier in this popular, first-person shooter series. The previous entry Medal of Honor: Rising Sun adhered to the formula that has worked for the series: history and realism mixed with tense gameplay. It also made some serious missteps, including mindless enemies, linear missions, and glitchy presentation.

Medal of Honor: European Assault improves over its predecessor in a number of ways. Enemies are more intelligent -- they seek cover, use grenades to force players out into the open, and change positions to get a better shot. Expansive level design allows players to get creative in the way they advance towards their goals. Secondary mission objectives give players some stuff to do besides fight their way to the finish line.

The game, however, suffers from some new problems. Your squad members will stand in the open until enemy fire turns them into a lifeless heap. EA also eliminated mid-level save points, so if you die at an inopportune time, you will have to start over from the beginning of a level. The European setting is dreary and monochromatic, unlike the colorful jungle settings in Rising Sun, and the art direction of EA does nothing to liven it up.

All in all, Medal of Honor: European Assault bring the series relatively up to speed with the quality of its competitors, but it remains imperfect. Diehard fans of WWII first-person shooters will find stuff to like here, but those with a passing interest are better off playing the superior Call of Duty or the more adult-oriented Brothers in Arms: The Battle for Hill 30.

Junk

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 4 / 8
Date: December 15, 2005
Author: Amazon User

MOH series has fallen on it's face with the past two entries. Rising sun sucked and so does European Assault. I'll give that this one is better than Rising sun but that's not saying anything. The gameplay is simple and bland. The A.I. is retarded. Boring missions and your sqaud is a useless feature. The MOH series needs a serious boost if it wants to ever have success again.

Room for improvment.

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 0 / 0
Date: November 21, 2006
Author: Amazon User

A OK game. The missions are OK. But some of it is complrtrly screwed up. You now have to defeat a bose every level that is 10x more powerful than anything else(he can take like 2 rocket hits.) All the melee attacks are bassicaly the same. And you're squad is made up of people from a retard house. The multiplayer is OK, only if you have LOTS of people. The overal game is alright, but just needs some tweaking.

Worse one of the Medal series

2 Rating: 2, Useful: 1 / 2
Date: January 27, 2007
Author: Amazon User

I was really disappointed in this game. For one your squad members never listed to you when you issued a command and they ran around where they pleased. There were hardly any check points in the game and especially in the last level where you played for over a half hour and at the very end if you aren't on the ball and get killed you have to start over again. I like the first medal of honor and I know there a lack of check points there but captures what WWII may have been like. I see that there is a new Medal coming out called Vanguard and hesitant about trying it but will.

Review Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next 

Actions