A rather impressive list of cons, I have to give you that. MoHAA is one of my three favourite Shooters ever (with RtCW and Undying on the other places). There has been no year since 2002 I didn't play through the series. So that makes me to one of your despised "millions of fanboys" I guess. I agree that Breakthrough is the best part of the game, while Spearhead seems to be a rushed experience and AA has its lenghts. But this whole game just keeps motivating me, I don't know why. It sure cannot be only because of nostalgic reasons. I like the straightforward gameplay and the different and interesting scenarios and I absolutely adore the sensational soundtrack. With the graphics I never had any problems (they were absolutely ok for 2002) and I never felt the need to cheat my way through. I died a lot, sure, but I can live with that. MoHAA isn't your game, and that's absolutely ok. I for my part really hate the CoDs, but that's my little personal aversion.

As soon as I read the post title and was then greeted by wall of rant I decided to save some time and cut to the chase here.

Somebody doesn't know a true classic game when they see one.

For its time, the graphics are quite good where it uses the Quake III engine as did Return to Castle Wolfenstein also released around the same time. Anybody wanting the eye candy of something newer and somewhat similar to this might want to instead play Call of Duty: World at War. You'll be missing a real classic with a lot of fun gameplay though if you skip this just because of its age. It would be better to play them both in my opinion. Be warned though, the grenade spam early on in the CoD game can be highly annoying.

Comparing a classic game to a modern game is like comparing apples to oranges really. Yes, apples are shinier but oranges taste sweet too.

Oh, and you don't need to cheat in sniper town. You need to learn how to play and then you will do just fine in sniper town. I am no pro and I got through sniper town on normal without cheating. Yes, it was a challenge. I found it fun and rewarding to beat it and I am admittedly not the most patient guy in the world.

Your squad mates in this game are just window dressing mostly. Forget about them doing anything for you. You are on your own. The illusion of some company is nice though and they do kill some enemies so it's all good. If you need more help than they offer, you need to learn to play better. Practice makes perfect as they say. Few people are born with leet skillz so play it on easy if frustrated. There's no shame in that. It's supposed to be fun, not torment. Honestly, this game is not all that hard for the most part. I found it a lot of fun and again, I am no leet kid. I am just a lowly casual and I beat this so how hard can it be really?

The comments comparing this to Half-Life 1, Unreal, Quake II, etc. are ridiculous and wrong. As I said, it's a Quake III engine game and that was current tech in 2002 still. The OP makes reference to HL2 but that game did not ship for two more years and a lot of ground was broken in game graphics between 2002 and 2004 when HL2 launched. By 2005 we had DOOM III. It isn't fair or appropriate to compare any of this stuff to a Q3 engine game from 2002. It's silly. It doesn't apply. It is incorrect.

Comments about realism: this is a game, not a simulator. You might want to try ARMA 3 if you want simulation. This is pure arcade here, damn fun arcade too.

Yes, the game is linear. So what? It's not a crime. The scripted stuff was something praised about this game when it released. Some of the action sequences are pretty fun stuff. If you want open world, go play that game. This game is old and this accurate reporting I am giving here is not news at all. A little time looking into it before buying would reveal all for anybody that has missed it in the past.

The game is not very short. Now I am wondering if somebody stopped at Snipertown or what. There is a lot of levels to complete before you even get to the expansions one of which was criticized for being brief as I recall but the other one was not and certainly the game proper was not. I remember it taking me a fair amount of time to complete it which was fine. I enjoyed the entire ride on rails. Great stuff.

Hit detection is fine. Learn to shoot.

Destructible terrain and objects were not in yet in 2002 that I can recall. You might want to play Red Faction games to satisfy your need to shoot rocks and watch them explode. That was the huge deal with the first Red Faction - destructible environments! OMG! Actually, that was as a PS2 launch title in 2000 I think. So I guess somebody had done it before MoHAA but it certainly was not anything common yet so why would anyone expect it here?

I had little problem with movement in the entire game or getting stuck on anything. Somebody probably needs to drink less and stop walking into door frames and stuff is all I can imagine.

I love animals myself but killing German Shepherds that want to tear me apart and eat me in a computer game doesn't bother me even a little bit. This is a game remember? This is not real life. No German Shepherds were harmed in the making of nor playing of Medal of Honor. I promise!

I think the OP is simply someone who would be best off playing new shooter releases and skipping all classic shooters which despite their virtues cannot be appreciated by them. I wonder if they are not far younger than I and were not around before and during these game's heyday. Is there a nostalgia factor at work here? I am sure there is. I loved it when it was brand new. I loved the multiplayer and had hours upon hours of fun with it. Would I tend to be more forgiving of shortcomings versus a brand new shiny DX11 shooter that is well made? Well, yeah I know that I would. In the very same way I could thoroughly enjoy playing Ultima VII even though Pillars of Eternity is a very high quality modern game of similar kind.

I think it comes down to how much you appreciate various classics for their quality which is most fairly rated by considering when they were made in technical terms at least or how much you'd rather skip that in favor of the new and shiny. I am not saying that the latter choice is wrong. We are all different and entitled to our own preferences. That's fine. But to bash a classic shooter like this with such an out of touch, out of context and unfair yardstick isn't fine. The OP tells me one thing very clearly and that is that they don't get it. They don't get what playing this today is about. It's not for them. That has zero to do with whether or not it is an excellent classic game which it is.

I think many old timers or older timers will tend to agree with me here just generally speaking. These classic games are probably more often than not appreciated more by us than anyone else. It's kinda like oldies music. I wouldn't expect a kid today blasting rap with bass so loud it makes my chest hurt to appreciate Led Zepplin's 3rd album the way that I do. I even like stuff like Johnny Mathis because my mom spun his records a lot. I am not wrong to love that stuff. In fairness, kids today are not wrong to think its stupid. It's from another time. I don't get rap. They don't get classic rock. This stuff is nothing new under the sun but games have now been around for long enough that we see the cycle beginning to occur with these too.

EDIT: I failed to properly acknowledge that the things I just said regarding age are certainly not universal. I know there are plenty of younger people who can and do appreciate great classic games. In my comments I was thinking of the many who don't see any value in them when they make comparisons often based on differences related to newer vs older tech, etc. So please put away the pitchforks and torches. Those of you who get these games just as much as I do know who you are. I apologize for failing to recognize you before this edit.

Basically your post is, "your suck and stop complains".

"Great classic" don't mean anything, many of the best games we remember are because were the first time we got introduced to something, or happened something. And time later, you found the game was good, but not more than that, and yet we are going to be glad gaming them because of the fond memories of the past. That is why many people love FFVII (more in the American continent) than the previous FF, because that was their first chance they had to play the franchise (and due all the marketing with the PS to promote it), and probably is my case too as I begin to search the previous games because of FFVII and I still have great respect for a game that is... just bleh in comparison to the FFVI, and still I found myself comparing the later games with it.


By the way, when you has a sniper behind a wall collision (and invisible to you) and he can hit you, is a bug. Many things can lead to it, from poor designing to unique events meanwhile the gameplay, but still a bug.

I played the game and saw "Saving Private Ryan" for the first time in the end of 2013.
For me the game is really cool. It's not unsimilar to CoD1 and 2, because of the same dev's.

No, I said quite a bit more than that in my own wall of text. I made a variety of points but yes I did hammer on the whining about deficiency being to blame for difficulty when largely it isn't. If I could overcome Sniper Town I am sure anybody else could too. As I said above, I am just an average player.

Great classic does mean something about the quality of a game which people continue to be interested in and play for many years more than others that disappear into obscurity.

Don't get me wrong. Just because a game is old and sold here doesn't make it a classic in terms of a quality gameplay experience. It has to be a good game to begin with but again I took exception to the comments above because this is absolutely a good old game. It deserves the good reviews it gets.
Yeah, the beach landing is very cool in this game. I agree about the similarity to the early CoD games which I enjoyed just as much.

MoH:AA just feels right. Yes by todays standards it might be considered not up to par with other games. But consider that back when it came out it was just amazing. The gunplay feels amazing, the music is amazing, even the graphics were great ! The story was interesting and it just felt right. Also the MP oh yes the MP.

Even by todays standards the game holds up and if you go play it after you played any new CoD/BF game and go back to it you will actually see that it is a amazing game.

That's not really setting the bar high :-P

Well true. But i just think the game is not overrated. Its a prime example of a amazing FPS.

While I agree that Medal of Honor: Allied Assault is not the best FPS game ever made, far from it, it is a fun WWII shooter that cashed in on the Saving Private Ryan craze at that point, or at least was part of a franchise that did that. I do in fact disagree that this game is flawed because of the lack of serious realism and the SFX engine.

On the SFX engine, your issue with it deals with the game needing some tweaks to use 3D Sound and EAX. With those in place the game thankfully fixes the issue of distant enemies actually... sounding like they came from the distance.

On the unrealism part, remember the Saving Private Ryan thing I said earlier? Medal of Honor pretty much banked on that craze initially and while the movie was mostly a movie showing the dark side of WWII, many people really got off on the D-Day sequence and would love to play a game with something like that in it. Dreamworks Interactive and EA recognized that notion and made Medal of Honor for the PSX and it got a lot of sequels. The games aren't meant to be realistic, they are more or less WWII action movies in video game form.

I am not going to claim that this is still one of the best single player FPS games ever made as in many ways it is rather dated, but even today played on normal in single payer mode its still fun and that's what gaming is meant to be all about.

But in multi-player mode with a group of your friends it is still one of the best Lan party games ever made, so if you are in to multi-player PC gaming you really should give this game a shot with some friends.

So if you are looking for a few good cheap games to play with a group of friends and for a weekend lan this really should be on your list as a possibility :-)

If I had to select 5 games to purchase off gog or any were else with a total budget of £40 or less for all my purchases I would buy MEDAL OF HONOR, Serious Sam: The First Encounter (played on co-op mode), Free Space 2 and FLATOUT1 or 2, and even while they are not on offer I should still be within budget and have a full weekends worth of PC gaming entertainment.

Play the game on hard and you got a pretty nice challenge too, makes D-Day even more intense if you ask me. :P

Yeah, this was major setback of this expansion imo, do not know why did they do this, roughly, only 1/3 of enemies droping ammo in this datadisk. Conserving ammunition is essential to success. But I like Breakthrough much better than Spearhead, more interesteing maps and objectives, mainly behind enemy lines and cover missions.

I really liked the setting and new weaponry. The multiplayer also featured an awesome jailbreak mode. As soldiers died on the battlefield they were moved to each side's prison. If you were able to sneak over to the prison though you could break your team mates out. Poured tons of hours into that despite Breakthrough's poor netcode compared to the base game.

Being interested in WWII i'd modify the settings files and make the weapons have period accurate fire rates and clip capacities. I LOVED playing the final mission of Spearhead with a PPsH that had a 71 round drum and fired at 900 rpm! Irritated me that the Enfield sniper rifle featured in Breakthrough wouldn't exist for another 20 years. Like giving you a M16 to use! Always wished someone had replaced the weapon model with a period appropriate scoped Enfield rifle.