Reviews for Medal of Honor Warfighter (NA)
This is NOT a Medal of Honor Gamexyz25 | Jan. 26, 2014 | See all xyz25's reviews »
Medal of Honor has always been about the story. From Frontline all the way up until Medal of Honor (2010) the stories were well laid out and in the case of the previous instalment (2010) you connected with the characters and were immersed in the great dialogue that was expected with a MoH game. This MoH is not the case. Developer Danger Close chose to amp up the multiplayer and leave the story to the side, destroying a franchise that had a long list of success. The single player is all over the place, and you breach a door every 5 seconds, it comes to the point where you can even unlock special breaching devices to mix it up every now and then, it's just plain silly. And the multiplayer which was clearly the focus of the game, is downright confusing. The attempt to use various military specialists from different countries ends up with a convoluted unlock system, and the maps and gameplay leave you dead every other second, because there is absolutely nowhere to hide. I wanted this game to be so much more, I wanted a sequel to MoH (2010) but instead this game ended up being a tech demo for the latest frostbite engine. 50/100
Despite the reviews, a fun experiencewheat108 | Dec. 3, 2013 | See all wheat108's reviews »
I don’t think Medal of Honor: Warfighter deserves all the bad reviews. It seems to me that reviewers used this game to vent their suppressed frustration against developers for not innovating in the FPS genre, and this game was “low profile” enough that their angst and apathy could be expressed without the internet blowing up and bringing out the pitch forks. It is essentially the same game as COD and Battlefield, and those games review well enough every year.
You should know I get these FPS games primarily for the single player campaign (yes we do exist), and not at all for the multiplayer. I enjoyed my time with the campaign. The feel of the guns are great, they feel substantial. You know when you’re hitting an enemy, albeit they are still a bit too much like bullet sponges for my liking. I think Danger Close and Dice need to abandon the slavish recreation of a COD single player campaign, including regenerating health and excessively garish HUD elements (do I need to have a massive shield icon above the heads of my AI teammates? Really?). Those remnants of game design feel patently absurd in a game that purports to strive for realism and portray the top tier of elite soldiers. The ARMA games have shown that you can really have realism in a game, if you adjust the pacing and the game design. I would also like my AI teammates to stay out of my field of fire, and quit pushing me out of cover so they can shoot ineffectually at the enemy, but alas those traits are intact from shooters of this ilk. Once you overlook the niggling holdovers of bad game design, and just settle in to the enjoyment, it’s a fun game. There are some really great car chase sequences in Warfighter that surprised me. I found them to be tense and well executed. I was on the edge of my seat, and it definitely gave me the feeling of being inside an action movie, which seems to be all these modern shooters strive for. Rather than embracing the unique qualities of interactive games, we get developers emulating films, as if they were the same thing (at the least developers could adopt the cinematic ideas of dramatic tension and empathetic characters to benefit the games story, but instead they’ve recreated only the whiz bang). Well developers, hate to break it to you, but they aren’t the same thing at all. David Cage, are you listening? Ok, so I’ve devolved into a mixed bag review. But the final point to be made is that the game is fun despite itself. Ignore the absurdities of design, and the unintelligible “story”, and you’ll have some fun. I wish they would just ditch multiplayer in this franchise altogether, but I know it's just wishful thinking.
Very disappointing, but fun.zachoines | Sept. 5, 2013 | See all zachoines's reviews »
I found this game to be highly disappointing. There are a few different reasons why I found this game to be disappointing, those being a very uninspired story, and non engaging and irritating gameplay. Although I may admit, gauging how interesting a story is purely subjective and is highly dependent on the individual. But, with this fact in mind, this game's story can be summed up as one about stopping a terrorist organization before they kill a lot of people (I purposely spare the details here as to not spoil the plot for anyone who wishes to play the game). Personally, I find this concept to be overused and, as a result, very generic. It's one of those story arcs that game publishers use when they do not have any other legitimate cause for the enemy besides to destroy (insert country's name here) because they are bad for some reason. As for the gameplay, what really irritates me about it was the lack of choice it gave me. In the beginning level of the game, I was ordered to kill an enemy. But, I honestly did not want to kill this person, and so I spent sometime finding out how to get past without killing him. But the game, as a result, killed the person for me in my hesitation. My personal gripes aside, there was some good in the game. I thought that the graphics were amazing, far more better than most games which came out the same year. I also thought that the gun play was engaging and fun as well. But, when compared to all the flaws I came across in my play through, the games strong points do not make up for what it lacks. Nonetheless, I felt that this game was at the very least fun due to its solid mechanics, and that is all that matters in the end. Play at your own risk.
Averagedmcdermott524 | Sept. 1, 2013 | See all dmcdermott524's reviews »
Honestly, I didn't enjoy the multiplayer at all (only got like 3 hours into it). The campaign is pretty short (I wanna say about 5-6 hours?) but I found myself semi amused throughout the whole thing. MOH is definitely not a game changer. I probably wouldn't recommend this game to all of my friends. If you don't get this game, you won't regret it and you wouldn't be missing much.
The failed attempt to focus on multiplayernightassassin1 | Aug. 30, 2013 | See all nightassassin1's reviews »
Medal of Honor has always been a favorite in FPSRPG, but in its attempt to take on Battlefield and Call of Duty, the makers have started to change what the franchise is about. This franchise has always focused on the single player, giving multiplayer the back-burner as simply an added feature. This time around they attempted to swap the two and do what other recent FPS games do. This is what caused the biggest problem with this game. The usually long and immersive story that puts you in the midst of battle has been cut short and feels neglected. You are no longer immersed in the story and the story is bumpy compared to any Medal of Honor classics. I would not recommend this game unless you are a Medal of Honor lover. The graphics are nice and all, but what they attempted to do with this has turned it into a pathetic version of Battlefield and the story is far from what it used to be.This will get a 68 from me simply because it is not for everyone and is a complete waste of money if you are not really into the franchise.
Awesome Storyline, Incomplete due to uncontrolable troubleCorpsmanHusky | Aug. 18, 2013 | See all CorpsmanHusky's reviews »
Medal of Honor Warfighter is very spot on. You might feel it or not, but it sums up some very common events that happen ( Minus the PETN idea). It upsets me that the seals who provided information about the kind of gear they use were docked paychecks. I could find out what gear they use myself by using google correctly. Authenticy should not be punished, however, Medal of Honor was. Almost perfect game, multiplayer is a slower version of an arcade shooter. I am very sad Medal of Honor was taken out of rotation. But Preachers story is not over. Buy the game, complete the campaign and you'll know what I mean ;)
Short campaign that reminds me of Call of duty.Radeintel | Aug. 13, 2013 | See all Radeintel's reviews »
The game is average of 5 and 1/2 to 6 hours of game-play. The games campaign has many call of duty like moments, it feels like a heavy call of duty clone done in the frostbite engine. I also feel that the frostbite engine was put to very poor use in this game the guns looked cool and sounded it but some of the other textures were terrible in example the trees and some of the houses.I also expected it to be somewhat of a sequel to the 2010 MoH, to an extent with characters it was but everything else until the very end felt like a whole new game. I give this game a 75 because its concept and idea is great but the story is random and the abuse to the frostbite engine brings the score down.
Interesting multiplayer that sits between COD and BF3chestburster | May 4, 2013 | See all chestburster's reviews »
I've always enjoyed BF3's gun feel and the smooth movement system. Yet I've also enjoyed COD's close quarter combat with killstreaks. This game combines those two parts of COD and BF3, and improved on them.
For one, the guns in MOH:Warfighter are even more satisfying to handle than BF3's guns. The sound of firing those guns are spectacular. The recoil, sway and the animation of those guns are truly impressive. This to me, is one of the most important things when playing a multiplayer shooter.
Everything else in this game is OK. Sure it does nothing new, but it's a nice variation for someone tired of playing BF3's close quarter maps. Seriously after playing Noshahr Canals (the most popular TDM map in BF3) for 100 hours, I really want something new and I don't quite like the maps in CQB DLC, or COD's gunplay. MOH: Warfighter is very satisfying as a backup game when I wait for BF4.
Oh and the firebuddy system of MOH is nice, especially if you have a good teammate.
Average shooter that misses its mark.Bigshrimp | Feb. 7, 2013 | See all Bigshrimp's reviews »
This game feels like a rushed incohesive shooter. The multiplayer is buggy and the single-player campaign is confusing and doesn't even get interesting till near the end of the campaign. They put a lot of effort into the visual and audio of the game but doesn't help the bad issues with the story and other factors that make it feel like you are playing a terrible FPS.
You will find a lot of cliches and other elements that make you want to cringe. Also the bugs can deter from the enjoyment as well. The AI is terrible and you can tell that with some bugs you encounter that they didn't even test the game fully before publishing it. The multiplayer is kind of fun but is pretty imbalanced as well. I would definately recommend passing on this, since there are a lot of better FPS options out there right now.