Well after playing for a few hours, these are my impressions:
The Good:Graphics look nice & run smoothly (i used medium settings). The HUD is nice and minimalistic too.
I had no connection issues like in BF (i know Weed had some problems).
They have servers in more locations than BF has. I was able to find some with 15 ping in the server list.
The guns seem very accurate, especially the AR-s.
The Meh:Snipers are really powerful. Most people go down with a body shot (like MW2). This i think is a bad thing, they certainly are very fun to use, but slow down the already campy gameplay.
The "Conquest" gamemode looks somewhat promising. But the map in the Beta is very compact, i can see a lot of players camping at each end of the (very narrow)
pathways. Lots of potential for spawn trapping, like Domination in MW2.
The knife actually works. But it doesnt matter much, since you rarely get close enough.
The BS:Hit detection is not very good. Its not as bad as battlefield was at first, but still deficient.
The "Rush" gamemode is BAD. Its way more campy than the Rush on BF and thats saying a lot.
This game is SLOW, S-L-O-W. Think about the movement speed of a Rocket Soldier in QW, when hes reloading. Thats the sprinting speed in this game.
This may improve when u adjust your FOV (Its typically narrow, as you would expect from a console port), but it will still remain slower than BF.
You really cant yout manouever an enemy, strafing is futile.
First one to pop his head out dies.
Nades (and nade launchers) are useless, they fly like 10m and do about as much damage as a firecracker.
This game looks OK from a technical perspective, but i find the gameplay average @ best.
I can not see any reason to get this over Black Ops or BF:Vietnam, in fact i see no reason to leave BC2 because of this.
But i will wait for other opinions.
Thu 14 Nov - 2:00 by 
Subject: Medal of Honor (2010) 
