Sign up for a new account or log in here:
also @ TechSpot: Nvidia GeForce GTX 780 Review
That wasn't the case with MoH: Airborne, which I picked up solely for benchmarking purposes but then I found it difficult to pull myself away from the game. I can't recall the last time I was motivated enough to play a single player campaign from start to finish, so when I heard about the 2010 version of Medal of Honor I instantly looked into pre-ordering the game.
Developed by EA's Danger Close and DICE, this latest installment is simply titled "Medal of Honor." Meant to reboot the series, MoH takes place during the ongoing war in Afghanistan featuring both single and multiplayer modes. For the purpose of this article we are focusing on single player performance. Medal of Honor is unique in that it uses two different graphics engines for single player and multiplayer modes, so all the performance testing we are about show you will only reflect output in the single player mode.
Read the complete article.
User Comments: 26
Got something to say? Post a comment-
Very comprehensive review, thanks for the informative read!
-
fimbles said:
Nice to see my quad cores finaly getting some use for gaming.
The single player mode of this game is extremely short. Fully completed it on normal difficulty within 3 hours. It was a fun 3 hours though.
-
This Video on BBC news may be worth a watch, Chris Ryan on how realistic the game is, I am tempted to buy it now after watching this, sounds epic!
-
Good article, and even though I have a gaming PC I've always liked getting Medal of Honor games on Playstation so I'll ask for this one as a gift for PS3 =P
-
LNCPapa said:
I think I'll get this game - after they fix/patch/driver update to support SLI and AA properly.
-
KG363 said:
Why do you no longer include x3 cpu's?
Otherwise, Great Review
-
I appreciate the CPU use/core use information.
Great review Steve.
-
SP mode in this game is as boring as watching paint dry. There is simply nothing fun about it, MP mode is just as boring. There is nothing fun or challenging about this game when compared to other games in same genre.
-
Amazing that they're still getting mileage out of the Unreal engine. Of course this is the 3rd iteration of the Unreal 3 engine they're using, but still....
Think I'll pass on this game. Metacritic gives it a below-average score of 75 and only a 3-hour solo campaign? That's not going to work for me. Besides, Fallout: New Vegas is coming out in 4 days. MUHAHAHAHA!!
-
Epic were among the first to write an engine that made proper use of more than 2 cores so there's nothing new here. Look at Bioshock in 2007 and it used quads properly even if it didnt thrash graphics cards because of the low res textures.
Unfortunately MOH betrays its console 'roots' with its narrow FOV which isnt fixable (in singleplayer) and the lack of head bobbing. The linearity and scriptedness are very apparent and on some levels if you dont move up and trigger the next script the game just stops until you move to the right place - in other words the whole pace and energy of the game depends on the player jumping through the right hoops at the right time.
The low scores its getting are entirely deserved.
-
I believe its time for an Unreal Engine 4...
-
Already in development:
[link]
"....the next Unreal Engine (Unreal Engine 4) already being under research and development with a small team. These new technologies as well as additional programmers take away some of the tedious work of project-specific programming and instead allow the game engine programmer to focus on larger concepts."
-
Very informative article . What I am interested in
is how do you access those graphics options ?
They are not available in my version of the single player campaign.
Isn't that the version the article was based on ?
Only graphics options I have are v-sync on or off , brightness/contrast and screen resolution.
There does not appear to be any "advanced" option.
I believe there is in multi but not SP.
Unless I'm missing something those screen shots of advanced graphics options for single player are mis-leading.
-
Good review and love the CPU breakdown, would've been nice to see some multiplayer benchmarks though. Personally played the multiplayer beta last week and the game on average performed 10-15 FPS lower then what I get in Battlefield Bad Company 2 with similar settings (1680x1050, DX10 & Maxed) which I found odd considering the smaller maps and overall graphics felt a bit inferior to BC2.
fimbles said:The single player mode of this game is extremely short. Fully completed it on normal difficulty within 3 hours. It was a fun 3 hours though.
Ya quite disappointing I have to say. I was looking forward to this game, but with a lackluster multiplayer and extremely short campaign I decided to skip it for now. Especially disappointed in Danger Close who was solely working on a the campaign and didn't deliver more. I'll stick with BC2 and its Vietnam expansion come December.
-
oops.....found those extra settings.
Just didn't scroll down enough.
What a knucklehead !!
Apologies for any offence I may have given to the reviewer.
-
princeton said:
burty117 said:This Video on BBC news may be worth a watch, Chris Ryan on how realistic the game is, I am tempted to buy it now after watching this, sounds epic!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11545028
It's far from realistic.... The guns have almost no recoil. If you've ever handled a firearm, ESPECIALLY an automatic one, you would know the game isn't even remotely realistic.
-
The fps numbers for the i3-540 don't appear correct. Clock for clock slower than the G6950? Can't be, the 6950 is same core as i3 without HT (hyperthreading) and with a smaller L3 cache. In well multithreaded games like BF:BC2, DAO, and RE5, HT gives a 40-50% boost in frame rates. Well threaded games is one of the best areas for a performance boost from HT (like video encoding). Either HT was off, or perhaps the fps number got transcribed wrong (a 6 instead of an 8 ??) which would mean 82 fps instead of 62. Please recheck the i3-540 numbers.
-
What about Nvidia's 295 card??? iId like to see more benchmarks with this card included...
-
Nice review and thanks for the good work. I hope there will be DX10/DX11 reviews on this soon.
-
Staff
@Guest, we have verified our results and evidently hyper-threading doesn't result in the boost you can expect to see in other titles.
-
Arris said:
3-4 hours single player. Virtually nothing new or exciting in the multiplayer either. If they'd put in the "slide into cover" and leaning out from cover from the single player then it might have offered a slightly different fps experience.
-
sigh of relief..my gtx 275 still has a while in the system..magnificent win over a 5850
-
Enjoy the review. Looks like my HD4850 can still handle this game at 1920x1080. You have given me a reason to seriously consider upgrading from a dual core CPU to a quad-core (that Athlon II X4 645 gives you great performance for the price). Been holding off for a good reason to upgrade. I've been anxiously waiting for this game. Tried the beta online multiplayer and it was fun. Nice graphics!
-
I still cannot understand why the developer would use two different engines for one game. It gobbles up HD space (forced to store the same assets twice) and makes the two parts of the game feel entirely dissimilar. At least the game is coded to use four cpu cores.
-
LNCPapa said:
It can probably re-use the costly assets.
Most Popular
| Trending | Featured |
Featured on Cases
Subscribe to TechSpot
Get free exclusive content, learn about new features and breaking tech news.