Reviews for Medal of Honor: Warfighter



Xentek | June 21, 2014 | See all Xentek's reviews »

To jump right in, these types of games are meant to be played in multiplayer. Predictably, the singleplayer campaign is bland and short. Though the main flaw here is how heavily scripted it is and you are not given any kind of freedom to tackle different situations. In effect, it would have worked out much better if they had made it one long cutscene.

Anyway, the real meat is the multiplayer. Or at least it's supposed to be. Me and my friend were thrilled the multiplayer was focussed on two man fire-teams as (at the time) it was hard to find 2 additional people to fill a 4-man Battlefield 3 squad. Sadly, multiplayer is a boring mess. It currently has 100 to 500 people playing it any given time. Uses the battlelog web browser system and hasn't recieved any real updates since it first launched.

It supposedly runs on the Frostbite engine, but playing it looks and feels console grade. For a game 1 year older than BF3, this is inexcusable. The maps are unbalanced, the kill streak bonusses overpowered and the mini grenades are all you'll ever want to master since you can throw them half-way over any map. Not to mention the hit detection lag, which is much worse than BF3 or BF4 ever had.

Both players and the developer/publisher dropped this game a few weeks in. Medal of Honor doesn't have the same marketing value (anymore) like Battlefield has. Compare the mess of this game to Battlefield 4, except unlike BF4, they never bothered trying to fix Warfighter. Even though the fundamentals were there.