War is hell. Games are fun. It is difficult for developers to cover that gap when creating a war game. It is especially challenging when the game is set in an ongoing conflict and the developer gives their self the task of remaining appropriately reverent to the soldiers engaged in the war. 

Unfortunately, the game is held back by its technology. The world is sloppily put together and the scripted events lack nuance. Certain events won't start until you find the proper place in the game to stand, and some enemies cannot be killed until their scripted action is completed. Seeing the game's cogs moving so plainly in front of the player's eyes does a lot to distract from any attempt at reverence. 

Multiplayer is even more predictable than the single player. DICE -- the developer behind Battlefield -- was obviously given the order to take their game and make it as much like Call of Duty as possible. They succeeded in that, but they gave the game nothing that would make it a truly unique experience. 

That isn't to say it isn't fun. It is as fun as Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was when it released in 2007. However, it doesn't stand up to the improvements and variety that is in Halo: Reach or is likely to be in Treyarch's Call of Duty: Black Ops. 

If this were 2008, I would be recommending Medal of Honor without hesitation. As a game it is 1 or 2 years behind its competition. As a commentary on the war and the people who fight it, well, I feel no closer to them now than I did before playing the game. I want to say that I am glad that EA and Danger Close tried to make a statement with their game, but I won't say that. I won't say that because I'm not sure they really did try.