WW2 #11: Medal of Honor: Heroes
Handheld warfighting fun, but lacks depth
This review was originally posted to Twitter on September 24, 2018.
Initial release: October 23, 2006
Platform: PlayStation Portable
Developer: Team Fusion
While Medal of Honor predates Call of Duty, it’s kind of been seen as an also-ran in what in the early 2000s was something of a crowded field, not helped by a perceived lack of quality with the yearly releases. There have been quite a few games in the franchise, but a surprisingly entertaining one exists as a handheld game: Medal of Honor: Heroes. Its only real drawback — once you get used to the controls — is that it’s very short and simple.
The basic gameplay premise follows on from European Assault, where you have a fairly open map with a number of objectives and optional objectives to achieve. You’ll also have a steady stream of NPC allies who follow you around; you won’t be penalized for losing one. The story, such as it is, is basically revisiting some of the heroes (see?) of previous games, notably James Patterson, who’s got two games under his belt already (the original, and Allied Assault), but also John Baker, hero of… the crappier expansion for Allied Assault? Okay. Also Holt from European Assault, for some reason. Sure, why not.
Your objectives vary:: kill all the enemies, capture and/or hold a point or several, get documents, blow stuff up, and occasionally escape when you’re all done. Some levels will actually repeat themselves, only the time of day is different and the objective is changed. It’s padding, but oh well.
Don’t expect your allies to be much good for anything except shooting. Which is fine; you’re not going to be doing much other than that, yourself, anyway. Enemies and allies come in a constant trickle, so there’s always going to be conflict somewhere near you. If only there was music!
All in all, while it’s not at all groundbreaking, as handheld FPS games go, there are worse options. Like the Game Boy Advance version of Medal of Honor: Underground.
