Review Medal of Honor: Warfighter Review

Hadrian

Literally as TIGHT as a gnats chuff.
OP
Former Staff
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
16,991
Trophies
3
Age
42
XP
4,978
Country
United States
14cb1op.jpg
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.​
2ikb9ed.jpg
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.​
2z6xx00.jpg
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.​
6fzjbo.jpg
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
 

Devin

"Local Hardware Wizard"
Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
5,955
Trophies
2
Age
29
Location
The Nexus
XP
4,538
Country
United States
My stepfather who is an avid first person shooter play was looking forward to this game. Downloaded it, threw it on the Xbox 360. He disliked it, and quit it. For basically all the reasons you described.
 

Hadrian

Literally as TIGHT as a gnats chuff.
OP
Former Staff
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
16,991
Trophies
3
Age
42
XP
4,978
Country
United States
Yeah, I would have quit the game too had I not said I'll do the review. It's quite frustrating playing this game because it could be so much better but EA (who were meant to have changed) just released it too damn soon. Also I must add that this is reviewed on the most recent patch and it is still bug ridden. Another thing I must add is that the trailers and screens don't do the graphics justice.

Sorry it was posted late, it was ready but this site was down and when I went to post it last night I my HDD died! So just had to re-write it and check it over.

Hopefully my future reviews will be out a couple of days after the game is release...I've quit piracy so I have to rely on PAL release dates. :P
 

Guild McCommunist

(not on boat)
Member
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
18,148
Trophies
0
Age
31
Location
The Danger Zone
XP
10,323
Country
United States
iVme42WuU4Oft.jpg

Those horrifying faces.

And this game was never promising. A sequel to a mediocre FPS game that came out a year ago with no real promise to be better than that mediocre FPS game. It feels so half assed and phoned in. You can only make a franchise annual if it's good.
cu3cp.jpg


cu3cp.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gahars

p1ngpong

Gamer Professional Deluxe
Supervisor
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
6,871
Trophies
3
Location
DS Scene
Website
imgur.com
XP
11,342
Country
Croatia
Nice review Hadrian, I was sad to hear the MoH series was going down the modern fps road when they announced the last game. I really don't get what EA are trying to achieve with this, I mean they already have Battlefield to compete with COD and I don't see the sense in having another competing IP to go against it, especially when it is poorer than both BF3 and COD. I was tempted to try this out but as you pointed out the badly executed set pieces kill the immersion and it is a common complaint about this game and the previous one. I wish they would go back to a WW2 setting I actually really enjoyed Airborne and heroes 2. The thought of a new WW2 MoH game running off the Frostbite 2 engine is very appealing to me and would probably be amazing, but I think the franchise as a whole might be completely finished after this.
 

Hadrian

Literally as TIGHT as a gnats chuff.
OP
Former Staff
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
16,991
Trophies
3
Age
42
XP
4,978
Country
United States
Yeah it was never promising, just another stop gap between Battlefields but as I said, with more time it could have been a decent at best game, you know kinda 6/10.

With the amount of cash and talent EA have this series could have been so much more rather than actually being so much worse than games releases ten years ago.
 

Hadrian

Literally as TIGHT as a gnats chuff.
OP
Former Staff
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
16,991
Trophies
3
Age
42
XP
4,978
Country
United States
wish they would go back to a WW2 setting I actually really enjoyed Airborne and heroes 2. The thought of a new WW2 MoH game running off the Frostbite 2 engine is very appealing to me and would probably be amazing
Yeah, personally I think enough time has passed since the last lot of WWII games and EA doing MOH with that theme would make more sense nowadays and would make it stand out more especially now that Gearbox have said that Brothers In Arms: Furious Four is not part of BiA franchise and will be a separate game. BTW Brothers In Arms did so many things right, tactical play and making you care about your characters, I hope Gearbox return to the series properly.

There really is no reason for two modern day FPS franchises from EA especially with Battlefield growing in popularity. Either kill MOH or bring it back and focus on what made it a great series.
 

hkz8000

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2010
Messages
144
Trophies
0
XP
120
Country
Is spec-ops really worth getting? i've heard it's just a mediocre TPS with a pseudo-philosophical story
 

Guild McCommunist

(not on boat)
Member
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
18,148
Trophies
0
Age
31
Location
The Danger Zone
XP
10,323
Country
United States
Is spec-ops really worth getting? i've heard it's just a mediocre TPS with a pseudo-philosophical story

"Pseudo-philosophical" is not even close. The game itself is a stark opposite to the "gun-ho" shooters of today. It's a game that's emotional and full of complexities. While it has the shell of a mediocre TPS (and in that realm it certainly is) but the inside is an incredibly ambitious game.

It's not a great game but it's a great piece of work. I know that sounds odd but it really is one of the few games where the gameplay is absolutely irrelevant, even in a shooter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gahars

retKHAAAN

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
3,840
Trophies
1
XP
1,588
Country
United States
I thought the 2010 Medal of Honor was decent. A nice change of pace from the CoDs regurgitated all over our faces every year. It also helps that I don't care for online multiplayer in the least. Will probably wait till this hits $14.99 like I did with the last one.
 

Guild McCommunist

(not on boat)
Member
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
18,148
Trophies
0
Age
31
Location
The Danger Zone
XP
10,323
Country
United States
Yeah, personally I think enough time has passed since the last lot of WWII games and EA doing MOH with that theme would make more sense nowadays and would make it stand out more especially now that Gearbox have said that Brothers In Arms: Furious Four is not part of BiA franchise and will be a separate game. BTW Brothers In Arms did so many things right, tactical play and making you care about your characters, I hope Gearbox return to the series properly.

There really is no reason for two modern day FPS franchises from EA especially with Battlefield growing in popularity. Either kill MOH or bring it back and focus on what made it a great series.

Or we could just stop doing WWII. There's been other wars and conflicts. Vietnam (it got only one level in Black Ops) is still rather untouched. How about we get creative and make a WWI game? Why not some All Quiet on the Western Front bullshit?

Like to FPS devs history goes from about 1939 to 1945 then abruptly skips to the 2000's. Unless you're Black Ops which trickles in a year here and there.
 

Hadrian

Literally as TIGHT as a gnats chuff.
OP
Former Staff
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
16,991
Trophies
3
Age
42
XP
4,978
Country
United States
I still want a action medieval first person game that conveys the utter brutally and gore of that era without involving magic and sticking swords up elves arses.
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    I guess Ancientboi would be Peter
    +2
  • SylverReZ @ SylverReZ:
    Loooooool :rofl2:
  • SylverReZ @ SylverReZ:
    So true
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    @K3Nv2 Snow Day is pretty fun. My only bitch would be the camera controls, when you move around, say down, you have to move the right stick left or right to get camera to turn and get your view, other than that I like it so far.
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    From what people say pvp isn't even worth it
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    I just been playing offline, and they give you a few bots here n there on your team to help battle. I don't think it's as funny as the other games tho, more battle oriented than humor, which kinda sucks, but I'm still early in it
  • Xdqwerty @ Xdqwerty:
    @BigOnYa, doesnt the game have a campaign mode?
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    Yea, and co-op, but you can also start a pvp session and battle just with friends. You get special skill cards (powers) the more you play. And higher value cards, but you can only enable so many cards at a time.
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    If you can find enough for it
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    Toilet paper is considered the money, you collect and buy stuff with TP, kinda funny. Graphics are def better than the other games tho, I think they used Unity 5 engine.
  • Psionic Roshambo @ Psionic Roshambo:
    Look if I zoom in enough I can see the herpes!!!
    +1
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    In fact I'm gonna go make a drink, roll a fatty n play some, good night to all!
    +2
  • Xdqwerty @ Xdqwerty:
    I bet most people at the time still watched it in black and white
  • SylverReZ @ SylverReZ:
    @Xdqwerty, Many of them did before colour television was common.
  • SylverReZ @ SylverReZ:
    Likely because black and white TV was in-expensive.
    +1
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    It certainly wasn't inexpensive it cost the same as a new car back then
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    How much did a 1965 color TV cost?

    For example, a 21-inch (diagonal) GE color television in 1965 had an advertised price of $499, which is equal to $4,724 in today's dollars, according to the federal government's inflation calculator.
  • Xdqwerty @ Xdqwerty:
    @K3Nv2, take into consideration how economy was back then
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    Yeah that's why they listed inflation rates
  • Xdqwerty @ Xdqwerty:
    Sorry didnt read that part
  • BakerMan @ BakerMan:
    @LeoTCK don't worry i knew he was joking
    +1
    BakerMan @ BakerMan: @LeoTCK don't worry i knew he was joking +1