This review is for single-player only.
The Call of Duty games are often criticized as cynical propaganda. I can't speak to whether that's true of the entire series, but as far as the Modern Warfare trilogy [1] goes, I think that this misses the mark. Yes, there is an obvious "Rah! Rah! America is awesome!" theme throughout the trilogy, but this feels more like it a product of the general zeitgeist of military-themed entertainment in the 00s/10s than a specific attempt at pushing an agenda. Modern Warfare is such a tonally inconsistent mish-mash of tropes and devices borrowed from a dozen very different movies that I struggle to see what point is being made by the games other than "killing people is awesome…except when it's not." Propaganda is essentially designed to move people from point A to point B; effective propaganda requires a focus and coherency that the Modern Warfare trilogy never had. So while I can't speak for the later entries in the series, I can say that calling the Modern Warfare trilogy propaganda is vastly overstating the case, because the series just isn't smart enough to do propaganda.
Medal of Honor, on the other hand, is propaganda. It is cynical propaganda. It is a mean-spirited, unambitious, narrow-minded game. Those who are inclined to disagree with the agenda that the game is trying to push will naturally be turned off, but even if you agree with the game's political message, the way that it is portrayed is ineffective.
And make no mistake, the game pushes an agenda. Modern Warfare's storyline is a Hollywood movie pastiche that bears only the slightest resemblance to reality. Medal of Honor, on the other hand, takes place in a real-life warzone and is based on a real-life military operation. The end credits scene has a lengthy tribute to special forces soldiers "fighting for our freedom." There is even a (bad) helicopter level where you shoot up hadjis while a terrible nu-metal song plays in the background. If ever a game wanted you to believe certain things about the U.S. Military and its actions in the Middle East, it was Medal of Honor.
The game is basically a pale imitation of Modern Warfare; like those games, Medal of Honor has you will tromp your way through a short and linear campaign while following the orders of characters who are much cooler than the one you get to play as. The other characters in the game have cool names like "Vegas" and "Panther." You, on the other hand, get to be "Rabbit." You will walk down corridors, wait behind cover while the blood is cleared from your screen, and mindlessly blast your way through hundreds of Bargain Bin Ladens, cleansing your palette occasionally with the worst turret levels in the history of shooting. Instead of the epic setpieces from the Modern Warfare games, we get to ride a four wheeler. Whee! Only one scene (the crash landing of the helicopter as seen from the inside) comes close to the cinematic excitement of your average Modern Warfare mission.
This stripped-down nature of the story might work with more open-ended gameplay (see: Metal Gear Solid V), but when paired with the Call of Duty linear shooter formula it really shows the limits of that game design philosophy. The COD design philosophy works because of the synergy of gameplay and spectacle; take away the spectacle, and the bare-bones nature of the gameplay becomes very apparent. You are supposed to be a badass operator, but you don't get to sneak around and using your own tactics to defeat the enemies, and you don't get to do cool things in awesome scripted setpieces either.
The game just feels mean-spirited on multiple levels. At one point you get knocked down by a terrorist; one of your battle buddies shoots the guy before he shoots you, and then he pulls you up and growls "I just saved your ass." Gee, thanks buddy. Not only does the game put me in a situation where I have to watch someone else do something cool instead of doing it myself, but then that character mouths off at me for doing something that the game forced me to do. 200 or so members of the Afghani allied forces get killed, offscreen, and their deaths are barely discussed; meanwhile, a large part of the plot is based around saving one or two operators who don't even get proper characterization. The game constantly tells you that the Taliban are the bad guys [1], but doesn't ever show them doing anything bad; apparently, just listening to Voodoo or whomever say "these are the bad guys" is enough to justify massacring them as Linkin Park blares in the background. Modern Warfare may have had the sensibilities of a Michael Bay movie as recollected through a drunken haze, but it knew how to hit the most basic emotional notes. It's very clear through Modern Warfare that the Russian Ultranationalists are the bad guys--they set off a nuke, massacre an entire airport as a pretext for an unjust war against America and Western Europe, attack major cities with chemical weapons, target civilians multiple times, and kidnap the Russian president's daughter in order to force him to give them nuclear launch codes. Modern Warfare gives you some very good reasons to feel justified fighting your enemies; Medal of Honor just assumes that you'll want to kill the Taliban because, uh, they’re not American. Voodoo called them "bad guys." Do as I say, soldier.
The story is deadly dull, revolving around a cliche manufactured conflict between the boots-on-the-ground commander and his arrogant superior in Washington. We never see these characters outside of cutscenes and it's not clear why we should care about them. Similarly, we don't get enough characterization of the operators to care about rescuing them; nor are the stakes for their missions ever really made clear. Why do I need to shoot all of these people? What bad thing is going to occur if I don't. The Modern Warfare games involve us in situations with clear high stakes that strongly appeal to our basic emotions--if we don't shoot these guys, then Makarov and his buddies will kill civilians, conquer the U.S. and turn the entire world into a fascist hellhole. Medal of Honor presents us with a situation where we are not involved with no emotional hook and then expects us to care about it.
It would have been simple matter to make the story emotionally compelling. Show me one scene of the operators that we rescue just dicking around on the base, like the tutorial in Modern Warfare 2, and I would actually care about rescuing them. Show us some Taliban opium dealer warlord beating up an innocent old man, or some wide-eyed firm jawed radical telling a little girl she can never go to college, and I'll be ready to turn the entire Shah-i-Kot Valley into spaghetti sauce. You want a good reason to listen to Linkin Park while shooting people in a chopper? The real-life Taliban banned all music except for chants from the Koran. Show some Taliban thugs beating a kid for listening to heavy metal, and then let me put some heavy metal through their skulls. The scenarios practically write themselves, but for some reason the writers of this game decided to go for a story that didn't hit the emotional high notes of a blockbuster action movie, but lacked the moral seriousness and character development needed to pull off a "gritty" war story. There's nothing compelling in this story, nothing that grips the audience and motivates them.
And by failing to effectively motivate the audience, Medal of Honor fails as propaganda. Whether or not that is a good thing for the world as a whole is up to you to decide, but taken on its own terms, Medal of Honor is an artistic failure. In terms of pure gameplay, it is dull and derivative. And as an overall experience, it will inspire boredom from those inclined to agree with its message and revulsion from those inclined to disagree. In short, it's a game that has no reason to exist and no reason to be played. I do not recommend Medal of Honor.


[1] Henceforth Modern Warfare for convenience.
[1] This game uses the phrase "bad guys" almost as much as Far Cry 6 uses "guerilla" and it's just as annoying.

I hate this game. Maybe the hate is a little unwarranted, but its just so forgettable. In fact I beat the campaign last night and I can barely remember it. Now I am not an FPS snob by any means. I love a crappy FPS. Shell-shocked 2, Soldier of fortune, Rogue warrior, hell even Turning point had an interesting concept. But this, this is just bland. Jump through a 10 level romp around very similarly rocky locations, fighting the same group of enemies with basically the same weapons. It handles fine. The graphics are fine. The story is fine. There's just something about it that seems so unnecessary. I mean this was the era of Call of Duty and Battlefield Bad Company, and you can see this game borrows heavily from them. Heavy scripted shooting sections in modern times with some gruff real american heroes by your side. You can forgive Danger Close Games for trying to tap into this popularity. And there is the Tier 1 mode which adds a bit of challenge and replay ability to the game. I just really can't recommend this, even to hardcore FPS fans.

Falha terrivelmente ao tentar competir em qualquer nível com a era de ouro de Call of Duty. A gameplay não é divertida o suficiente pra se importar com o multiplayer, a história não é interessante o suficiente pra se importar com a campanha; em suma, existem dois motivos pra você comprar esse jogo: Você é fã dos MH antigos (bem, você vai se decepcionar com esse) ou você tá desinformado sobre o conteúdo do jogo, que foi o meu caso. Eu não diria que é completamente desastroso, matar os carinhas é legalzinho, mas é tão terrivelmente genérico e sem personalidade que chega um momento em que você só torce pra acabar logo.

To put it simply, Medal of Honor is a great game for its time, but most of my complaints are how the campaign is pretty short, only taking about 5 or so hours to complete the entirety of it, depending on how long you advance through levels; or how open the maps are, I'm not sure whether the developers were on the verge of making this game either a tactical or run and gun, and the story, as some people have expressed, it's mediocre at best, their focus was on authenticity and realism and it came through very well, it's not good or bad, but I've seen better first person shooters with better stories.

I have a mixed opinion about the multiplayer; developed by DICE. I don't mind that it's on a different engine; it's aesthetically more pleasing than the singleplayer, with more visual effects to make it appear amazing; graphically, I'm not sure. It's just that it doesn't really fit or look like it's from the same game; animation-wise, it's almost identical to Bad Company 2, some animations reused.

tldr: Mediocre story based on authenticity, which Danger Close delivered perfectly if not for its bland game design, dull animations, and overall going against everything the original series did. Play it once, after that immediately drop it or head over to the multiplayer and install a custom client/patch.

- pq nao tem mais estatísticas no final das missões?
- pq a campanha dura 3 míseras horas? (isso n seria problema se o jogo terminasse a história que começou)
- pq nao tem praticamente nada no jogo que lembre que ele é um moh?

tirando isso, confesso que amei cada segundo da experiência, não merece tanto o hate que recebe.