Throughts on Medal of Honor : Warfighter?

[Tomany2]

I picked up this game 3 hours before release, I enjoyed the 2010 reboot, even with its heavily scripted events, its single player was great, and the multiplayer was great fun...

With Medal of Honor : Warfighter, it felt even better.

This is the unpopular opinion it seems, with early reviews leaving it in the low 40's / 4/10 range, but i don't see what the problem with it is. The single player seemed great, the characters were well built, and I ended up coming to tears at a few points in the game.

Spoiler

In the restaurant with both Mother and Preacher

Spoiler

For Mother... And for Rabbit

Spoiler

The funeral for mother in the very end

Honestly, not many games have been able to do that, especially from the first person shooter genre.

Anyway, that is my opinion, I really enjoyed the singleplayer experience, and am so far loving the multiplayer... but what has anyone else thought of it?

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

I only rented it. I would rate it with a 6 out of 10. The military talk sounded realistic which i liked and i also liked the car missions. While the driving wasn`t much fun i could handle it and enjoyed the cinematic presentation. A few levels where a bit more open and you got to play a more opened corridor which is also a plus. That`s about it.

The cinematics could have been left out and i didn`t felt touched by them. I don`t really liked them since they made the game like another big advert for the army.
It was ok aslong as it lasted but i didn`t felt the need to buy this game. This opinion goes only for the sp.

 

[smeghead25]

I also really enjoyed the original reboot, and despite the reviews I plan on picking it up at some point.

It doesn't do anything wrong, it plays like BF3/CoD, it has scripted events, and everything you do in it has been done before. Those things are true of the BF and CoD series as well. Those games get rave reviews, but for some reason, it's apparently cool for critics to hate on MoH.

Oh well, what can you do?

 

[Dawns Gate]

I thought it was very good. Me and a buddy of mine just finished it today. I thought it was overall a great game and it didn't overstay its welcome. It felt much more weighted than other FPS's and really gave a good feeling of combat. I'd give it 8.5/10 at least.

 

[Easton Dark]

Did the reboot really do well enough to warrant another so soon?

My thought is I'm not sure why they made it. It's like making another Homefront.

 

[Sennune]

I'm working through on my second playthrough of the game right now. I love the game. I really do, but simultaneously I do see quite a few quirks with the game that would lower the level of excitement of most reviewers.

The Singleplayer campaign was very enjoyable for me. I really liked the characters they brought back. I liked the back story of Preacher and allusions to his home life. I thought Danger Close lived up to their word of portraying operators and special forces soldiers respectfully with some authenticity that is hard to accomplish in an entertainment medium. The moments mentioned in the OP were very moving and added great touches.

Contrary to the praise I have for the game, it suffers from some of the problems as Medal of Honor (2010). It feels much like a shooting gallery most of the time. Your hand is held, you're told where to shoot, you dispatch generic enemy. I know this sounds like a similar complaint with most first person shooters, but Medal of Honor seems to be the most bland. It was great they added the driving sections to break up the pacing a little bit, but most of the time it was wave of enemies here, wave there, over and over. Comparing it to Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty's last two iterations, they manage to keep the action compelling through the use of massive set pieces, over the top situations, and fast changes in scenery. Since I brought up pacing, it's pretty rough to get through the game. The cutscenes, car chase and such, help to change things up, but the combat is so consistent you don't get a moment of reprieve to really evaluate what you just went through.

I really liked Warfighter. I think it's a step in the right direction for Danger Close. There's just issues they will have to address as they continue to stress authenticity over Hollywood adrenalin fueled military exhibitionism.

Did the reboot really do well enough to warrant another so soon?

My thought is I'm not sure why they made it. It's like making another Homefront.

Well, to be fair Medal of Honor (2010) seemed to set the stage for a reboot for the entire franchise as opposed to the holy grail game that was going to spawn a wave of indisputably great AAA titles under the Medal of Honor hallmark. I like Danger Close, but they're still trying to find their stride in the midst of heavy influence from EA and DICE. To address Homefront, Kaos went out of business because of Homefront, which wasn't the best game but I liked the premise. Now Crytek has it for the next iteration so I expect there should be some great improvements.

 

[T_ConX]

It just seems like another Modern Military FPS in a market filled with Modern Military FPSs. No wait, it's more than that. It's EA's half-assed response to the market dominance of Call of Duty, made worse by the fact that their plan to beat Activision is to the EXACT SAME THING as Activision. Have two studios on two-year development cycles so you can always put a new game on shelves, not just before Christmas, but BEFORE that years Call of Duty title.

And then there's the fact that I'd have to install Origin to play it. Sorry EA, but if BF3 couldn't convince me, then MoH:WF sure as hell can't...

 

[BarbaricGoose]

You know, I just rented this, and unfortunately, I think I only made it about halfway through.

I really wanted to like the game--I did. But they made it difficult. I had the most fun with the driving sections. Those were actually a lot of fun. If that were the entire game, I'd have probably enjoyed it a lot more. There was Nothing remarkable about the shooty bits, though. Just.... eh. Not bad, but I prefer CoD.

The story was somewhat interesting, but the weird... I wanna say "CG" cut scenes featuring Preacher were just bad. They tried to develop Preacher as a character, but it didn't work--at all. They did this whole "Broken family" sorta thing, but it failed because it was only small snippets of the bigger story. The only time Preacher talks is during those cut scenes. The rest of the time he's just some silent asshole. So the characters that you don't play as are the ones with personality; they're the ones you care about.

So, I called it quits when...

Spoiler: Fairly big spoilers abound

Mother was killed.

You know, I've no problem with characters dying, but when a series kills off it's only interesting character (in the middle of the fucking game), it tends to backfire. There's no real emotional response other than "Fuck this game!" Preacher is basically this yes man who takes orders from the other, more interesting characters. Games like this rely on characters like Mother or Captain Price to tell the story, and make it interesting. If you kill them off, the story ceases to be interesting, because all you're left with is some faceless asshole who we hardly know anything about. This has always been a pitfall for some FPS games, and CoD suffered with it to an extent, but not as badly.

In MW1, you played as a faceless yes man, but then in MW2, you were taking orders from the character you previously played, which I thought was great. So it used the second game to develop the character that you'd resume playing as in the 3rd game. I mean, you did play as Soap a bit in MW2, but he wasn't QUITE as faceless. He actually had a personality, which is more than I can say for Preacher.

Instead of killing Mother, they should've killed Preacher. That would've actually been unexpected, and it would've served multiple purposes: kill off an uninteresting character, make the player become the more interesting, more developed character, and surprise the audience. It didn't help that they made it super obvious when Mother was about to die. As soon as that scene began, first thought into my head was "Mother's going to insult this guy, and then get executed isn't he? Just like that guy in that other game... *minute later* yep--I'm done."

It did surprise me how furious I was when that happened.

All in all, I'd probably give the game a 7/10. It has its moments, and the driving sections were a lot of fun, but majority of the game is just... a bummer. If you really want a military shooter, replay some of the older ones.

 

[Bat Vader]

I have been thinking of getting this. How long is the single player? Is it 12-15 hours long or is it like COD single player where it is only 5-6 hours long?

 

[Rule Britannia]

I dislike it with a passion. The ADS, to me, seems clunky and bulky. The only attribute that may entice me to get MoH warfighter is the Battlefield 4 beta.

The 2010 Medal of Honour game did have an amazing campaign though, I won't sell it short there.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

Frankly, I'm just so tired of the "realistic modern warfare" genre. It's so oversaturated, so overdone,so poorly executed most of the time. But what really gets me is the name of the genre. This isn't realistic. In real war, does your health regenerate? Do you have a HUD without wearing any kind of eyegear? Do you respawn? But most of all... America, you're not always the good guys! The Russians stopped fighting you decades ago! Arab terrorist are a thing of the past! Stop trying to paint yourselves as "the noble heroes that can never do anything wrong ever"! In real war, no-one is the hero. Grow the eff up, and start actually being realistic in you realistic shooters. Show shades of grey, show both sides having a point, show what people in war go through, have the eneimes be more then racist stereotypes, and instead of just putting in "war is hell" as a token message, actually make it a centre point. If only there was a game that did that...

Oh wait.

 

[hazabaza1]

The name is really funny.

Though I prefer some of the earlier drafts.
"Medal of Honor-Battledoer"
Medal of Honor-Shootysoldier"
"Medal of Honor-Gunbangbang"

 

[Brendan Stepladder]

Honestly, I don't see the point of the franchise in general.

Yes, MoH has a long history, but why should EA allow Dice to produce two highly similar games when it knows full well that Battlefield is the only series that is going to sell?

On a side note, why do battlefield games even have a campaign? They always suck, and the focus with EA is so driven towards how lucrative multiplayer is. They should just ax the campaign altogether.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

A boring as shit scripted Modern Military Shooter in a genre that is already saturated beyond belief. I don't even know why the game exists.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

A boring as shit scripted Modern Military Shooter in a genre that is already saturated beyond belief. I don't even know why the game exists.

Because we're EA. Screw common sense, good products, and doing something new, we have money to make!

 

[WanderingFool]

Did the reboot really do well enough to warrant another so soon?

My thought is I'm not sure why they made it. It's like making another Homefront.

I actually liked Homefront. Multiplayer wise. Story was far to short and way to shitty.

With games like COD and MoH, I cant justifiy a purchase unless I can play the multiplayer for a while, as the story is to short and is usually only worth one playthrough (for me atleast). I did try the Reboot, but didnt care for the multiplayer, so Ill most likely give this a rent.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

snip

Ok, I've been meaning to ask someone this for a while. If you're a fan of multiplayer modern war shooters... why? I'm honestly curious, what is it people love so much about this? Don't get me wrong, I play FPS games, Halo is one of my favourite franchises of all time, but modern war shooters... I just don't get. Is it because it's well balanced? That can't be it, because of all the crap you have to unlock so people who play longer get stronger until the game is damn-near impenetrable for newbies. Is it the community? Can't be that either, because really, who wants to play with toddlers and gunwank fans? I just want to know: how is this genre popular?

By the way, props for having a Rachel avatar.

 

[dantoddd]

I haven't played it yet, i'm going to buy it soonish. but having read many of the reviews i feel that giving this 4/10 and CoD:ABC 9/10 is a grand exercise in being hypocritical.