Medal Of Honor: Frontline Comments by Gestalt

I wouldn't say it looks shite, lower resolution yes, but definitely not shite.

My only criticism is less to do with the game and moreso with that dang dualshock controller!!! Curse it to hell!!!

Played it, loved it, it rocks

an explosion sinks your boat and hurls you and your squad into the water, leaving the survivors to swim ashore.

Swim? With one hundred pounds of kit? At my age?

Shurely, shome, mishtake.

Tch, and Halo only got 8.

*ahem*

"Shame it looks shite on the PS2 compared to the PC version"

Suit yourself - I prefer the way the PS2 version looks TBH. That could just be the difference between playing on a nice big widescreen TV from half way across the room and playing with my nose up against a 19" monitor though. :)

As for the controls, they're not as precise as with a mouse and keyboard, but it's still very easy to play the game. The controls don't get in the way, and the addition of the aim function actually makes Frontline more flexible than Allied Assault.

From what I've seen, this looks almost exactly as good as AA...maybe lacking a bit in the texture department...but nothing major.

Yep it's a damn good game - loved it! 10/10 is a bit high imho as it isn't perfect. Occasionally some of the mission objectives are a little too vague - you can get killed after, as far as the player is concerned, the mission should have finished, due to some imprecise timing. Very annoying to hack through a whole mission, complete all objectives & then step outside a door & get wacked.

I've snagged myself on pieces of scenery quite a few times, which is a bit of a git due to you having to restart.

Apart from that, it's funky. Although it's a pity that some of the missions are a little bland e.g the submarine and train levels.

And please, don't let us get started on the control system. Sit down with it for a while and you'll have it "sorted". Whinge whinge whinge...

"And please, don't let us get started on the control system."

By the time you are through the first couple of missions, you get to grips with it no problem. Just takes a bit of concentration at first - some people just can't make the effort I guess.

"10/10 is a bit high imho as it isn't perfect"

/me clobbers DocX with the business end of a Panzerschreck. A game doesn't have to be perfect to get 10/10, just bloody good. Which this is. I didn't have any problems with mission endings, though I did notice some of them seemed to take a few seconds to register that you'd finished. As for some of the objectives not being clear, that's where the "HQ" hint button comes in handy. I used it a couple of times, and it saved me using a walkthrough.


"some of the missions are a little bland e.g the submarine and train levels"

Hm, I really enjoyed the submarine level and thought the design was really good. Looked beautiful, and got just the right level of claustrophobia without being a pain to navigate.

EA PS2 game getting 10/10? must be good... *bought*

"/me clobbers DocX with the business end of a Panzerschreck."

You'll have to get past my Panzerfaust first! Yeah, don't even know why I bought up the score in the first place - it is a bloody good game after all & there's no point arguing over numbers.

I was surprised. In opinion the game suffers from a VERY acute tube-syndrome, e.g. the player is funneled through very narrow levels and the objectives get completed nearly automatically, there is no way not to get all of them. The sense of linearity and the overwhelming scripting make this game feel like a Hollywood summer holiday blockbuster.

Because they're so much damn fun, the games are more polished, and they generally work first time out of the box without having to patch them or upgrade your drivers? :)

:D

Conman, why am I not shocked that the climax of your post was praising Halo?

"You're saying this is a perfect game..."

Right John, I'll get the pliars and the blowtorch, you hold him down.

10/10 isn't a perfect game! When are idiots going to realize that!

This could take up the place in between Project IGI and Serious Sam 2 ;) - hehe. This seeming to be a good mix of the two. The first level (Rough Landing, can't remember for sure) is the first level that actually has pulled me into the game. I thought when you come from the boat to the beach: "We've got chaos!" - it's a very good level that deserves props for ;).

Ehh? I'm rambling again - must be the morning coffee at work that gets me started for a "rough day of work".. er, maybe not.

Monday morning and I can't believe we only got to 35 posts on this one...

MOHAA m/player is superb, maybe something along those lines will come out on PS2 when the BB service gets going...

It looks like a lot of people here can't read...

I must state a dissenting opinion. I bought this game on release day a few weeks ago and to refer to Gestalt's conclusions, Frontline is without doubt the worst first person shooter I've played on any platform in the last few years, and arguably the worst console shooter of recent times. Bad graphics (stiff animations etc.), boring, linear level design (apart from the first one), mediocre A.I., the same enemies over and over again and BAD controls. MoH:F is YEARS behind in comparison to games like Jedi Knight 2.

For a review that imo hits the nail on the head, click here

I think Gestalt went a bit overboard with enthusing about the gameplay. Aside from the detail that men in full battle kit can't swim, I missed reading fleshed out descriptions of location and atmosphere. As a result the review didn't seem well rounded. While it may be worth 10/10, I don't see how the review justifies that score. Not being able to save mid-level is reason enough to mark the game down.

I think Gestalt went a bit overboard with enthusing about the gameplay

Are we reviewing the review now? :-)

Can't wait for 'US waking up time' later on. This could well be the 'biggest thread yet'. :-)

I'm surprised that the developers managed to create such an empty, lifeless (and corpseless) Omaha Beach. For some fluke reason I missed the captain in the water and ended up running around like a headless chicken, not dying, not living, in a strange state of time stoppage, where no one came to challenge my run around the sands of Normandy.

Scripted sequences look cool, but in the end they will never be able immerse the player without tight railroading. It's too easy to break the game, and have the illusion dissipate.

MOH:FL is an average shooter, based on my experiences. It has to compensate for the awkward Dualshock2-control by making the AI appear as incompent as the player. In the end it feels like war of the world's clumsiest shooters.

At the end of the day scores are a bit pointless as what do you believe...10/10...95 %...stars.....when it comes down to it everyone plays games with a different outlook and so have there own idea about what its like...i know scores are just a guideline...but id just be happy with ..yeah you`ll like it...nah you`ll hate it....sling it in the bin......

Are we reviewing the review now? :-)

Yes.

At the end of the day scores are a bit pointless as what do you believe

I don't entirely buy that. There are ways and means you can nail down aspects of games into percentages on a sliding scale. Ultimately they're no more than a rough guide and a good critical review alongside, that brings out the form of the subject, is essential. In this case I think Johns enthusiasms got the better of him by the look of it.

I think the 10 should be a holy grail of scores personally.

"Not being able to save mid-level is reason enough to mark the game down"

That's largely down to personal preference. Some people can't stand games without save game systems (which is why I mentioned it in the review), others don't have a problem with it.

Personally I think the best solution is the one Operation Flashpoint came up with, which was allowing you to save once per mission and including one or two auto-save checkpoints on the really long missions. That kept the tension up without forcing you to replay the entire mission from scratch if you got killed.

As for Frontline, it was frustrating on a couple of the harder missions, but I walked away and came back to the game fresh and beat them eventually. And the tension it adds, knowing that you can't just quick load and carry on, is incredible.


"There are ways and means you can nail down aspects of games into percentages on a sliding scale"

No there aren't. :) Review scores are completely arbitrary at the end of the day. It's simply a distillation into a scale from nought to ten of how much the reviewer enjoyed the game and how they feel about it at the time they write the review. There is no scientific process that can produce an "accurate" or "definitive" score, whatever your scale.

Shame there's no multiplayer. :-(

I may still have to buy this anyway. I found the Dualshock2 took a bit of getting used to when aiming on MGS2 from the first-person perspective, but it soon became second nature. It doesn't beat mouse & keyboard though.

I'm more than happy with the PC version. The dualshock takes some getting used to, but the mouse/keyboard took a while to get used to!

I think we will always run into score arguments here......just don't give it a score at all!

It's a great game! PC purists can go hang, the game is good as it stands. It's not that different to the PC version anyway!

Peej

That's largely down to personal preference. Some people can't stand games without save game systems (which is why I mentioned it in the review), others don't have a problem with it.

The choice should still be there, especially as the choice could be made at the start of a game whether to enable or disable this facility. At the end of the day are games about how a player measures up to them or about unfolding an experience?

There is no scientific process that can produce an "accurate" or "definitive" score, whatever your scale.

I disagree. It depends on what aspect of a game you're looking at, and how well you're prepared to refine it. I'm not saying that it isn't without circumstantial bias. But, I don't buy the line game scoring is entirely beyond the reach of a systemic approach.

heh, what hype? Not the 10/10 review I hope, as scores are just a matter of personal taste.

Not the 10/10 review I hope, as scores are just a matter of personal taste.

So, if I gave the review a 4/10 score there won't be any arguing and bitterness around here. It's merely my opinion and doesn't serve as a useful descriptor of the underlying greatness of G's latest intellectual flounce... ;)

That's a pretty pointless system IMO. For example, what if you have a game that's absolutely incredible but has very basic graphics? Take Kurukuru Kururin, for example. It's highly addictive, but even by GBA standards the graphics are lousy. So do you mark it down for that? Of course you shouldn't. Ditto for something like Vib Ribbon.

If you lock yourself into a system whereby you mark different parts of a game seperately and then tally everything up and add in a bodge factor you'll often end up with something even less representative than simply picking a number out of thin air. The whole is more than the sum of the parts. :)

I still say don't give it a mark. People will read the words and draw a conclusion, rather than hitting Next Page, Page Down then b1tching about Halo.

Putting scores on reviews will only draw comparison. Personally I think a 10/10 for MOH is setting yourself up to abuse ;-)

That's a pretty pointless system IMO. For example, what if you have a game that's absolutely incredible but has very basic graphics? Take Kurukuru Kururin, for example. It's highly addictive, but even by GBA standards the graphics are lousy. So do you mark it down for that? Of course you shouldn't. Ditto for something like Vib Ribbon.

EG used to do that didn't it? A quick look at the Perfect Dark review, and it shows you've broken down the marks into Graphics, Gameplay, Sound and Value.

Well at least you've realized the error of your ways. :P

I guess then the best thing is to have the game reviewed by more than one person. And have each reviewer do a little piece on the game so we can have more than one viewpoint on the game.

Edit: Grammar

Out of interest, we've just (or are in the middle of) changing our system to include scores (1-10), 6 being above average, so you can work out the rest of the numbers from there. It's going to be made obvious, though, that 10/10 doesn't mean a game is perfect, but that it is very, very good. As soon as people start realising this the sooner we'll stop getting the game score penis extension arguments (one would hope).

Out of interest, we're also including a system whereby if a game scores 8-10, then the review goes to a small, pre-selected panel to ensure it warrants a high mark such as this. That way, you don't get Fanboy X lamenting game Y on a different system, or vice versa.

:)

It's going to be made obvious, though, that 10/10 doesn't mean a game is perfect, but that it is very, very good. As soon as people start realising this the sooner we'll stop getting the game score penis extension arguments (one would hope).

Actually I feel perhaps letters are better for marks than numbers. The problem with numbers is that with something like 10/10 people tend to convert it to a percentage and (obviously) 10/10 is 100% which in most cases people view as perfect (I'm not saying its the right way to interpret scores though).

If you do something like A+ people will see that its a very good game. As in say GCSEs getting a A+ doesn't mean you scored 100% though. It just means you did very well.

Out of interest, we're also including a system whereby if a game scores 8-10, then the review goes to a small, pre-selected panel to ensure it warrants a high mark such as this.

Sounds like a good solution. :)

we've just (or are in the middle of) changing our system to include scores

Who's 'we', Stu? :-)

That's exactly what I wanted to ask.

So, who is "we", Stu?

"EG used to do that didn't it"

Nope, the old sub-sites Pocket Gamer and Console Gamer did it, but when we rolled everything into one site we stuck with the EG.net way of doing things.


"I guess then the best thing is to have the game reviewed by more than one person"

Like I've said before, that just isn't feasible. Writing a review only takes an hour or so, but it takes anything from four or five hours up to a week or more (depending on the game) to get to the point where you can write it up.


"it would probably stop this kind of debate since the particular facet of the game has been addressed"

It usually is addressed in the review. Like you said yourself, people should read the review instead of fixating on the score out of ten at the end of it. :)

www.ntsc-uk.com

Import news, reviews, advice and of course a Forum. Particular help is made towards those dipping their toes into the importing waters (TV problems etc).

Gestalt - You once told me to post any links I thought relevant. There's one for you :)

Gents - try it quick before management edit it out.

Like I've said before, that just isn't feasible. Writing a review only takes an hour or so, but it takes anything from four or five hours up to a week or more (depending on the game) to get to the point where you can write it up.

Fair enough. The comment section on each thread is usually a fair help as to whether to buy the game or not (unless the comments have deviated towards Marmite or Jaffa cakes).

That aside I'll be happy to help you out if you'd be so kind as to send me a copy of the game (any PC game will do) for review. ;)

what are they going to do with game e.g. extras and new levels and mayby shock horror better graphics!

Knowing EA.... none of those things. Expect a straight port of the PS2 version.

Dunno how many times I have to say this, but the score at the end is simply how the reviewer feels about the game at the time they write the review. It's a bit pointless comparing the scores that two radically different games like Frontline and Halo get. One is a fairly fast-paced sci-fi shooter on the Xbox with sparkly graphics, the other is a historical game on the PS2 with vaguely realistic weapons and settings and a much more downbeat visual style. I happen to like Frontline more than Halo, that doesn't mean that one is definitively a better game and that everyone will like it more than the other one.

Read the reviews, decide for yourself. Don't fixate on the scores.

Personally i like tweaking my PC to make it run a game...although spending a whole day getting a network card to work can be a little...annoying ;)

EG is one of the best reviewing sites around, so they might be console biased, they still give accurate reviews for every platform, as i see it their formula seems to rely on personal opinion and actual fun, this counts for a lot in my book.

You know guys, there *is* a difference between bias and an honest preference, openly stated and objectively justified. I don't see how you conclude that Gestalt is biased against PC games simply because he finds it frustrating that the finished product for that platform is generally far less polished than the finished product for any of the console platforms. As PC gamers you should be pleased that there are sites like this one which refuse to put up with that kind of shoddy treatment from publishers.

Anyway, along with moaning about scores, accusations of bias are one of the guaranteed constants about life on the Eurogamer boards.

@otto, i wasn't complaining about the apparent bias or as you so rightly call it a preference. I have a preference for PC for a whole host of reasons, it is a personal preference, i just can't get on with consoles, do i try to force this on people who use consoles, no. There is an open market for a reason, for some reasons certain fanboys *cough*scum*cough* can't see it ;) (i really shouldn't say things like that :D )