The SP is about 5 hours long (that's how long it took me anyway). It's basically a Battlefield 3 level pack (same engine). About 4/10.
Throughts on Medal of Honor : Warfighter?
- Thread starter Tomany2
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, I dont speak for everyone, but part of the reason is because of the challenge that real people offer over AI enemies.Gearhead mk2 said:
Another, is... actually the idea of unlocking things as you level up. I like getting something for my effort, so the new gun or perk given is nice motivation for me.
Also, I put up with the community, and all their bullshit, not very well. BF3 was actually okay for the most part, and Homefront never had a large thriving community that I could see (played it on the PC) but it was a really good, little community. Nothing like what you get from COD. Between the constant stream of shit coming from the fucking pre-teens, the assholes using the cheapest set-ups to rack up kills for their K/D, and other crap, I can only play COD for short bursts of time while the game is still relevant. I didnt even bother buying MW3, I just stuck with Blops 1, as after MW3 came out, Blops 1 got alot better with all the mutants mentioned above moving on to MW3.
Also I do enjoy Halo MP, but I do feel that everyone has some kind of cheat where they have more shields than me, as I empty a whole DMR in their face, just to bring down the shields, and they one shot me with the shotty from accross the fucking map[footnote]This is of course slight hyperbole, but *DO* I know that Halo: Reach actually hates me.[/footnote].
To sum it up though, its piss easy to play and always has something noob friendly to allow people to dominate without any actual skill. While I personally can appriciate the first part, the second can die in a fire.
P.S. thank you, I cant remember what I was looking for to find that picture, but felt it went with my naming scheme of being funny. I imagen it involves Ragna and Tao, though.
Well just like everything else in life people have different tastes (I know, shocker). They may just be the type of people that enjoy war shooters. I have a few friends who play them (pretty much to the point of excluding other games entirely) and it is a pretty diverse crowd. One of them is in the military in the US, I have another friend who is in the military in the UK, a couple more are the typical teenage crowd who get picked on in high school, with yet another being a 70 year old vet. Long story short, just because you don't enjoy something doesn't mean others shouldn't, and it shouldn't be their burden to try to explain to you why they enjoy something. It is like me saying, why do you enjoy that frat boy wankfest that is Halo (note: this was a sarcastic question, and not intended to slight the games you enjoy either)?Gearhead mk2 said:
barbzilla said:
Thanks for that guys. Maybe I'll find a good modern war shooter and get into it someday. And for why I like Halo, good music, good single player, but most of all I can actually stay alive for more than five seconds in multiplayer.WanderingFool said:
Sorry if I came off abrasive in my earlier post (I was in a pissy mood this AM), what aspects of the war shooter most appeal to you? Also will you be looking for a single player experience or a multiplayer experience? We might be able to find one thats a good fit for you. I know for me, I enjoy playing ArmA 2 quite a bit, but thats really it. I like the massive battles and wide open spaces.Gearhead mk2 said:
A big thing for me in a military shooter is whether or not the game can make me feel like I'm part of something bigger. Not just me, but hundreds of soldiers around me, tanks, artillery, aircraft... If that's done well, the game scores points for me.
I was actually hoping this game would fare better, but I can honestly say I saw this coming. It really goes to show the difference between talking a good game (or movie, or story in general) and actually delivering on those claims. It's so much easier said than done.
The other problem is how developers (in this case: DICE, Danger Close, Infinity Ward, Treyarch, and freinds) are trying to differentiate themselves in a niche genre. And they're doing it by focusing on the tiny details in their games. New weapons. New skins. New maps. New perks. Different perks. Different scoring system. Different time period.
Very, very few people are willing to think outside the box anymore.
The other problem is how developers (in this case: DICE, Danger Close, Infinity Ward, Treyarch, and freinds) are trying to differentiate themselves in a niche genre. And they're doing it by focusing on the tiny details in their games. New weapons. New skins. New maps. New perks. Different perks. Different scoring system. Different time period.
Very, very few people are willing to think outside the box anymore.
Um... good teamwork, flexible loadouts, large maps, vehicles. But most of all, I would like a single player mode that's actually a decent story instead of a token 6 hour shoot-eveyone-who-isn't-American-fest.barbzilla said:
I like the multiplayer. I honestly have no clue why. It's just fun. I love the maps, like the guns yadda yadda. Can't put my finger on why though. It has it's flaws and doesn't fully realize it's potential. It's a lot like homefront in that respect, that was another fun game of which I couldn't explain why I liked it so much. Not sure if it's worth 50 though.
It's sort of interesting to read the reviews though, MoH's campaign gets a lot of things said to it, yet most of them are applicable to all military shooters. Yet those get 9's while MoH gets mediocre scores. It's interesting to see
I've yet to play the campaign. I only play those for the trophies, there's rarely a military shooter with a campaign worth playing
It's sort of interesting to read the reviews though, MoH's campaign gets a lot of things said to it, yet most of them are applicable to all military shooters. Yet those get 9's while MoH gets mediocre scores. It's interesting to see
I've yet to play the campaign. I only play those for the trophies, there's rarely a military shooter with a campaign worth playing
Okay well single player wise, I would recommend Spec Ops the Line if you can stomach 3rd person shooting, the story is amazing. It uses teamwork (well if you use team work it allows for it), the maps aren't so great though, it is corridor city in there, and no real vehicles to speak of. But, if you want a good single player experience that would be my pick. Now if you want a fun multiplayer experience with your requirements, I'd go for battlefield 3. Here's the catch though, you need to find a dedicated group of friends to play with. If you are playing pubs on random servers, you will get frustrated at the lack of tactics (at least I do) used. If you are interested in Bf3 and pick it up let me know, I'd love to start up a new squad with you.Gearhead mk2 said:
I've got Spec Ops, and honestly, I'm tempted to call it the best game of this entire generation JUST because of the story. BF3, I havn't really played that. I'll give it a look sometime. If I do get it, it's gonna be on 360, because I'll be dammed before I let EA's spyware onto my compy. Thanks for the reccomendation.barbzilla said:
I'm very disappointed in it. It's filled with glitches and I still have no idea what the hell happened in most of the single player. The missions did not link together well until the very last three. The rest of the missions just seemed like filler and excuses to show different locations. Come on EA. Stop trying to copy Call of Duty. The first Medal of Honor game was all right, but you missed the jump on this one.
I will admit that there was one part that I found amazingly well done though. Just before you breach a door, one of your teammates turns to you and says:
Bam! That one mention of the second character was perfect. That got my blood pumping.
I will admit that there was one part that I found amazingly well done though. Just before you breach a door, one of your teammates turns to you and says:
For Mother. And for Rabbit
Bam! That one mention of the second character was perfect. That got my blood pumping.
Personally, I really like it.
The singleplayer was a bit of a disappointment though, mainly due to some story turns, so spoilers ahead.
All that passed, I did actually get a bit emotional at some points. like
People keep crying that the game is buggy, but I didn't really notice any, other than one time I missed a checkpoint that told my squad-mates to move up, which left me stranded until I hit another one. There was also one time when an enemy moved at at least mach 2 into a piece of cover from across the room, which was a bit weird. Oh, and in the multiplayer occasionally the reload animation doesn't happen.
Also, the "Extreme Realism" achievement (survive from near death 5 times in a row without dying) made me laugh out loud, because I actually watched the debate that Greg Goodrich had that obviously spawned it.
Oh, and yeah, the story missions were not connected terribly well. The best thing story wise is the character bits.
In terms of singleplayer though, let's compare it to it's competition. The BF3 singleplayer which was lacklustre, dull, had an absurd plot and no characters. The Annual CoD Releases, which are stale, have absurd plots and no characters. Then there's this, which is just as pacing-less. and doesn't really move all that much from the constant high-octane state that gets dull fairly quickly. It also actually had a few things that are unique to it and actually tried something a little bit different (The driving sections, specifically the stealth bit. Which was AWESOME) and actually does bring out some emotional reaction from the player. So yeah, Warfighter is king of the military fps' in singleplayer. Though that's not terribly hard. It's not like it's a great singleplayer either, but it's actually fucking trying, which is far more than I can say for it's competition.
Then there's the multiplayer. Okay, Here's the simple fact. They solved the problem that's in both CoD and BF3. There are no one man armies. Ever. The less aggressive, some say more "campy" players aren't useless either. The mandatory fireteam system solves it beautifully. You get ammo from your buddy. You can heal from your buddy.
If your buddy is the rambo type, you can stay a bit further back and be a respawn point and a source for ammo and health. This is fantastic because if you are near your buddy, you get points from HIS kills and from resupplying him and healing him. Change to the sniper class and stay back and spot enemies for him and cover him if you like.
If you're both the rambo type, then you can still constantly resupply from each other, heal each other and for the love of god be sure to cover each other's blind spots. I've only played for a few hours, but I can't tell you how many times I've saved my buddy and my buddy has saved me by doing so.
If your buddy's a less aggressive type, just don't stray too far from him. He's too useful to run away from. Though in this case You should have a known friend as the less aggressive type, so you actually have some connection and know what you're doing.
I also find that you don't even really need to be sure to have someone you actually know (though it does help, just it's not nearly as necessary).
So yeah, Warfighter is king of the military fps' in multiplayer too.
The singleplayer was a bit of a disappointment though, mainly due to some story turns, so spoilers ahead.
First moment I was disappointed by was when Preacher got convinced to go back to war. All that really happens is that Mother manages to talk him into it, which is really not how I thought it should have gone down. I thought that Preachers family only not getting killed in the terrorist attack because the only missed their train, the realisation of how close the war is to Preacher's family, would be enough to force him back to it in order to protect them, no matter what his wife's feeling were, he needs to keep them safe. Unfortunately, this seemed mostly ignored. It seemed like a large waste of potentially great character motivation.
Another bit that disappointed me was when Preacher confronted Sad al Din and managed to make the choice himself not to kill him. I really thought that Voodoo, when he entered the room, should have had to talk Preacher down. Preacher has lost two of his closest friends, Mother and previously, Rabbit. It seemed like another moment of possible character development that was kind of wasted. Also, I was personally angry with Sad al Din because I liked Mother, so I was almost disappointed that there wasn't even quick-time events for beating the shit out of him when Preacher was kicking his ass.
All that passed, I did actually get a bit emotional at some points. like
Mother getting killed and at his funeral. The restaurant scene was also really good. Seeing Dusty walk out of that bird was a moment of true awe. Also at the end, when Voodoo said "For Mother. And for Rabbit."
People keep crying that the game is buggy, but I didn't really notice any, other than one time I missed a checkpoint that told my squad-mates to move up, which left me stranded until I hit another one. There was also one time when an enemy moved at at least mach 2 into a piece of cover from across the room, which was a bit weird. Oh, and in the multiplayer occasionally the reload animation doesn't happen.
Also, the "Extreme Realism" achievement (survive from near death 5 times in a row without dying) made me laugh out loud, because I actually watched the debate that Greg Goodrich had that obviously spawned it.
Oh, and yeah, the story missions were not connected terribly well. The best thing story wise is the character bits.
In terms of singleplayer though, let's compare it to it's competition. The BF3 singleplayer which was lacklustre, dull, had an absurd plot and no characters. The Annual CoD Releases, which are stale, have absurd plots and no characters. Then there's this, which is just as pacing-less. and doesn't really move all that much from the constant high-octane state that gets dull fairly quickly. It also actually had a few things that are unique to it and actually tried something a little bit different (The driving sections, specifically the stealth bit. Which was AWESOME) and actually does bring out some emotional reaction from the player. So yeah, Warfighter is king of the military fps' in singleplayer. Though that's not terribly hard. It's not like it's a great singleplayer either, but it's actually fucking trying, which is far more than I can say for it's competition.
Then there's the multiplayer. Okay, Here's the simple fact. They solved the problem that's in both CoD and BF3. There are no one man armies. Ever. The less aggressive, some say more "campy" players aren't useless either. The mandatory fireteam system solves it beautifully. You get ammo from your buddy. You can heal from your buddy.
If your buddy is the rambo type, you can stay a bit further back and be a respawn point and a source for ammo and health. This is fantastic because if you are near your buddy, you get points from HIS kills and from resupplying him and healing him. Change to the sniper class and stay back and spot enemies for him and cover him if you like.
If you're both the rambo type, then you can still constantly resupply from each other, heal each other and for the love of god be sure to cover each other's blind spots. I've only played for a few hours, but I can't tell you how many times I've saved my buddy and my buddy has saved me by doing so.
If your buddy's a less aggressive type, just don't stray too far from him. He's too useful to run away from. Though in this case You should have a known friend as the less aggressive type, so you actually have some connection and know what you're doing.
I also find that you don't even really need to be sure to have someone you actually know (though it does help, just it's not nearly as necessary).
So yeah, Warfighter is king of the military fps' in multiplayer too.
The thing is that 'warfighter' and 'warfighting' and accepted terms within the military,hazabaza1 said:
they came about mostly to give a collective term for all friendly combatants engaged in the battlespace. This was nessecary because a sailor is not a soldier, and a soldier is not an airman. Combatant doesn't work either, as a sailor sitting on the bridge of a ship, pressing a button to launch a missile, while engaged in the battlespace, is not in combat.
Really, to me, and I know this sounds a bit harsh, people saying 'lol warfighter' sound roughly the same as people saying, 'why do they say oscar mike, its like, we already have the letters O and M'
OT though, I really wanted to like the game, but there was never a reason to care about any of the missions, and indeed, the missions didn't actually feel like missions. There is rarely a clear progression from the gains of one mission to the objective of the next and often, I was wondering what exactly the goal of a mission was supposed to be.
I also experienced some really annoying bugs, such as the sound cutting out for one of my weapons for the remainder of a level or the game just cutting out when I tried to breach a door.
On the plus side though, the lean mechanic was one of the best I've ever seen and I would likely pay full price for a game comprised soley of driving sections in MOH's vein.
Well, it is one of those games, isn't it? One of those where I feel I have to do this: "games", with quotes. Those "games" that don't give a fuck about the possibilities of the medium and only strive to be action movies in which you happen to direct the aim of the protagonist and pull his trigger finger? Where sometimes you are not even allowed to do this, because you are watching an action movie where the director walks into the scene and tells the hero (who in this moment becomes the mere actor) that "no, you can't run here, because Cinematic Experience!" and "No, let's not try to look through your scope in this sequence, because Cinematic Experience!"
It's one of those, right?
Guess what my thoughts are.
It's one of those, right?
Guess what my thoughts are.