You think that having massive thirty-two player multiplayer Infrastructure battles would give Medal of Honor Heroes higher marks, but critics these days... they're hard to appease. While the game isn't poorly reviewed by any means, it hasn't been glowingly reviewed, either. Maybe WWII games are becoming a bit too stale and familiar? Maybe the analog nub wore out the critics? Let's find out:
- IGN (84/100) loved the game enough to ignore most of its flaws: "Heroes has set a new standard for portable first-person shooters. It has a number of issues, a few of which can irritate quite a bit, but when put into perspective they all seem rather small. It says a lot about a game when its highpoints do a great job of excusing, maybe even hiding its blemishes."
- Gamespot (73/100) hopes you like playing online: "If it had more depth, Medal of Honor Heroes would be a great game. No matter how you shake it, with a single-player story that's just four hours long, the game's over far too quickly."
- Game Informer (64/100) thinks we've killed enough Nazis: "Everything about Heroes feels like a rehash of old concepts, even if this is effectively a new game. As a full-on PSP FPS that manages to work and control moderately well, that may be enough to satisfy some players. The rest of us, meanwhile, are going to feel like we've seen this game a hundred times before, and not only are we ready for something new, but we've played that something new in the form of other, better titles."