So EA strikes back to the Call of Duty franchise, against 2009's Modern Warfare 2, first with Battlefield: Bad Company 2 earlier in 2010, and now with Medal of Honor. Sure Black Ops is right around the corner, but I can't compare this with the new COD release because I'm yet to play it. I know a lot of people get annoyed with the COD vs MOH vs Battlefield comparisons, but why wouldn't you compare the three when they're all just about identical?!
Especially Battlefield and MOH, which both offer slightly more realistic gameplay and a more solid, consistent set of locations in the real world. Modern Warfare 2 was almost more fantasy with some of the gimmicky locations, such as the White House. Even Battlefield spread the story out a bit. But in MOH it's all based in the middle east and Afghanistan as you battle the Taliban.
Unfortunately EA replicated what the previous two games did in having you jump between different characters and teams. It's a cheap way of providing different weapons and locations, but makes the story messier. The story itself is quite simple, mainly following the teams in the battle against Taliban. There's no finely tuned storyline, but does feel like a realistic take on war. The ending is particularly good.
The visuals are as good as they need to be. While not as spectacular as Battlefield or Modern Warfare 2, they environments are very detailed and successfully created a vast, even cold, war-like atmosphere. They're consistently good. But also consistently linear, which is probably a major criticism from a lot of others.
In the end MOH is only 5-7 hours long at best, so it feels far too short. Another 2-3 hours should have been added. But this isn't surprising for these big franchises, afterall it's the multiplayer that provides countless hours of entertainment afterwards.
Overall, MOH falls short of Modern Warfare 2 and Bad Company 2, but not by much. It's fun, it looks good. It provides a more realistic war plot, so I'd certainly recommend it.