PC Version Review, completed the campaign mode but not touched multiplayer.
The Medal of Honor series was once a well respected FPS series. While there were other WWII games out there, none of them found the popularity that MoH did. It did a lot of things right, the atmosphere, including historical facts, having good multiplayer as well as very good campaign modes. Sadly people got bored of the WWII theme and after both MoH: Airborne & Heroes 2 bombed (unfairly I may add, I still think that Heroes 2 is best FPS title on the Wii & PSP) EA gave the series a break and Call of Duty (which was developed by MoH developers) took over completely. [prebreak]Continue reading...[/prebreak]
In 2010 EA revived the series and cast aside the past for it to become a modern war FPS, obviously inspired by the huge numbers that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare series had bought in. It was meant to be more of a modern war film approach to the genre, less Michael Bay and more of a "gritty" approach. It wasn't a bad game, it was just a bit dull in places.
The events in this game are also said to be inspired by actual events (it reminds you of this all the frigging way through)...I don't think I've ever heard of a American soldiers entering Somalia and killing many Somalian pirates and blowing up large buildings at all. Nor have I head of soldiers who couldn't shoot their guns because they needed to be shot first to set off a set piece! This is a massive problem with this game and has made this game a lot less enjoyable that it could have been. I've never been a fan of scripted events and this has so many that it really kills the experience. Not only that but it is massively bug ridden too. Here are some examples: You need to kick a door down to enter a room, however on many occasions you are standing there ready to go and your team mates are standing around somewhere else...you cannot progress until your team mates are also at the side of the door (and yes once you do get in it goes to CoD style SLLLLOOOW MOOOOO when you shoot the bad guys...yawn) after a while you have to give up and restart from the last check point...extremely annoying. Other instances are when you shoot a person, and he does not EVER die. I've pummeled the dude with bullets over and over and he will not die whatsoever, his friend near him though does and as soon as he dies the guy you have been trying to kill then sets of a scripted event...yep, he can't die JUST because of that. It's an absolutely stupid thing to do in modern gaming, we had this ten years ago and we shouldn't have this now. Any level designer worth his salt would have just had another bad guy appear to set this off. Sloppy programming and developing. Another instance was a sniper sequence at the end of a mission, right near the end of it there are terrorists (or whatever) trying to bring down a helicopter. The guy on the right will never die until he reaches the left of the column he is on so it's a case of trial and error throughout. I pick this particular part because it took me 20 minutes to finish it because every damn time I kill this guy, I get the usual "congrats you saved our ass etc" dialogue...but the mission doesn't end, it gets stuck! I have no idea why this is but it took many attempts before it eventually moved on.
Gameplay itself is actually very well done, shooting is very nicely responsive (I really like the option to hold a button so you can "breath slowly" so that it's easier to shoot people when you are viewing a enemy via a sniper scope) and each weapon has been nicely implemented and all have a different feel from each other. Getting around the maps aren't a problem at all, jumping, ducking, croaching and breaching all feel very intuitive and for me it's done a lot better than in the likes of CoD & Battlefield. What does let the game down is the maps, there is no need for tactical play at all, just shoot until everyone is dead, the rest of your team doesn't matter because they're pretty much invincible anyway. The developers should take a look at Brothers In Arms to see how to really handle this.
The AI in this game is also a joke, again it feels like I'm playing something from ten years ago. The enemy is a bit of a unorganised mess. They don't fight as part of a team, some are pretty much damn suicidal, you hide behind a wall and one will just run up to where you are and just shoot you with no regard to his own life. You can shoot one and instead of it turning it's attention to you, it'll just stand there shooting at nothing.
Warfighter uses the Frostbite 2 engine that Battlefield 3 introduced previously to try and produce a shooter that is more of a "authentic" war experience than what is also on the market. It's a little too brown and grey for my liking but the maps are extremely well detailed and the game itself is a bit of an improvement over last years Battlefield 3, there are moments in the game where it looks really spectacular. The cutscenes are meant to tell an emotional journey of your soldier but to be honest they were written and directed by a hack, I really didn't care about the characters at all and this game was meant to make you care.
One of the things I loved the most about the MoH series was that the sound was amazing for the time, setting an brilliant authentic atmosphere that pulled you into the game. In Warfighter the sound is functional at best, the guns do sound great and different but overall it's nothing special.
The environments are actually quite varied and it's nice to fight in different countries than in other games. I especially quite liked the monsoon ravaged scenery of the Philippines. Another thing that helped this game and is actually better than others like it are the on rails vehicular based missions. I normally find these to be pretty boring but in this they are the best parts of the game and really cuts the tediousness of the other missions. The handling of the vehicles are done very well and they do make you think you are in control even during the more linear levels.
Then we come to the length of the game. Without the bugs with the scripted events and having to restart the missions because of this, this game would have lasted 5 hours at the most. It's extremely easy, in fact I felt invincible throughout the game and I didn't even die once even on the highest difficulty!
The game in general though feels like it was rushed and unfinished, EA should have delayed this game and given it a few more months development time. The development team DESPERATELY need to employ some people who can actually design interesting maps and they also need a story that will grip you. Sadly EA feels that the sales of Need For Speed & Fifa aren't enough for it but had they delayed this it would have been received a lot better and sold more. There is a decent enough game in here but it looks like that most of the development was put into the excellent production and presentation rather than making sure the maps are well designed and the bugs are ironed out.
Positive points:
Very highly detailed.
Nice gunplay.
Good vehicle gameplay.
Nice variety in scenery.
Cons:
It's very grey and brown.
Level design is poor.
AI is poor.
It's bug infested.
Aims for a "authentic realistic" approach to the game, but does the opposite.
Feels rushed.
Very short.
If you bought this, you'll feel that you should have bought a better war game like Specs Ops: The Line...seriously this game is pretty damn good, get it!
4.5/10