User Score
5.3

Mixed or average reviews- based on 545 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Oct 25, 2012
    5
    Oh look, an explosion! *yawn*
    Oh crap, someone is chasing me with a car! *yawn*
    Jesus, this game is probably the most unoriginal and uninspiring thing I've ever played since Infernal. Boring game design, boring map design, boring gameplay design, boring sound design, boring... Everything.
    The amount of satisfaction I gained by playing the first three levels was equals to beating myself
    senselessly with a hammer. I can't be even bothered with multiplayer. It's a **** and it's going to be a bigger one once the fanbase gets bigger. This game is just a snoozefest. Expand
  2. Oct 23, 2012
    10
    Let me just start off by saying I'm an avid Battlefield player and I haven't played a Call of Duty since 4.
    I've played 300+ hours of MoH 2010 and was on the leaderboards. I've got over probably over 2000 hours invested battlefield as a series and have played it at a tournament level multiple times.

    First thing I will address is the class system because it really feels like its one of
    the beefier more fleshed out aspects that will make it stand out from battlefield. When I first started playing I though that the Spec ops wall hack was so overpowered. But then as I played the other classes I realized that all of the classes have some sort of OP ability.. so it all evens out in the end. Assault has a VERY hard to aim and shoot grenade that is a 1hit kill to the body. Long reload means if you miss you are dead and it has limited ammo that can't be refilled other than a squad resupply defense chain. The heavy gunner has an unlimited ammo deployment that makes his LMG an ACTUAL lmg (unlike in battlefield 3 lol xD) if you get flanked you are screwed though. No hope for you. The sniper has an auto spotting mechanism built into their bipod which is handy (but again if you are flanked you are dead... also it makes you stand still for the easy counter snipe). The demoman has the mask that makes you a walking tank with double the health. It definitely helps you get 1 kill unscathed After taking any sort of damage you can't see and its better to just remove the mask though. Makes you slow as hell though and an easy target for the 1 hit kill headshots. The pointmans ability has a single magazine of ammo that does more damage. The ammo kicks like a mule though so you can't abuse it really. The specops ability to do the really hazy wallhack (with a 2 second delay) doesn't really help you do much other than lay down your point streaks and tell where the enemy is coming as a general direction. No class is seemingly OP - it all boils down to the situation and what you like to play with.

    Next I will address the "wall hack aura" that is cause for much controversy:
    This aura only appears in certain modes. It will be the thing that gets you killed the most. So after killing someone I usually keep tight eyes on corners - sometimes people rush and it enables you to get the drop on them even though they should have had the drop on you. I don't really like it atm - will probably play modes with it turned off most of the time - but it might warm up to me. I can definitely tell there is a lot of psychological warfare that goes hand in hand with it and I am not against any of that at all keeps things tense and keeps you thinking on your feet.

    Comparing it to 2010:
    In 2010 the score chains were 'chained' to stronger score chains... The top players basically learned how the spawns worked and would spawn kill to cruise missile. There was even gentlemens agreements that once someone starts laying down you let them get to cruise missile before entering the spawn and making them flip/ sending down your own strikes. It was how the game worked. In this game though you can't chain your point streaks at all. The smoke nets you almost no points. Meaning you have to do an offensive if you want to chain points towards your next streak other than resupply which only nets you 100 pts - Usually what I end up opting for though because the splash damage on the point streaks are abysmal ^^ you have to REALLY get a good hit on the enemy or they REALLY have to be bunched up to get multi kills. Even the apache is weak. It can be shot down easily with a semi auto sniper. All in all - the point streaks are not what you play the game for like in 2010. They won't help you very much and don't really serve you that well. In fact I would argue the most useful point streaks are the level 1 offensive for each class. So the UAV, radar jammer, a mobile spawn point etc. Also - spawn killing is improved 10x over. I will not lie and say it doesn't exist - but it's MUCH harder to achieve than in battlefield 3 or Moh 2010 ( I can't say i've played cod to know how bad it is for comparison ). When you are being spawn killed the best thing to do is to either sit there and not spawn - or to just quit out. No shame in it imo.

    The melee system is a panic system but the reach on it is impossibly short and there is no homing in or lunge. There is a recharge delay after 2 swipes so if you miss one of your two - you can expect to be dead. Your pistol is still a more viable "OH SHI" moment weapon - the pointman is the one you don't want to make go "OH SHI" though - that shotgun is undeniably the best secondary for CQB. The Fireteams system is better than BF3 squads imho - he is your man for everything and you don't have to chase after him HOPING he will drop ammo. You just take it from him. Great for the "no mic" lone wolf bunch that don't really wan to go around with you as a team. I would type more up - but I've hit max character limit. 9.5/10
    Expand
  3. Oct 23, 2012
    10
    OMG! Compared to MOH2010, Warfighter is a huge success. The graphic is awesome and gameplay improved a lot -- fast paced but different from COD. And gun models are perfect!!! Good job Danger Close! This is exactly what we want!
  4. DXR
    Oct 23, 2012
    3
    A refreshing change from bf3 but I gotta say the multiplayer leaves a bit to be desired for me. With the launch day bugs aside...the maps are very small with minimal cover and are very, very linear and bottlenecked. You are rarely able to vault on top of rocks, rubble, vehicles, etc to sneak up on the enemy or find a good hasty ambush spot. Plan on always standing on the ground. There is also no environment destruction whatsoever. Wood or chain link fence in your way? Gotta hoof around it. Sure no one is expecting big open maps but to get from point A to point B you almost always have to decide between one or two tunnels, hallways, or narrow pathways to run down. There isn't much openhandedness. The gameplay feels slow but rounds go by extremely fast. Unless you run into a group of bad guys and happen to blast them away don't count on getting anything more than the UAV before getting killed again as the UAV requires you to be out in the open to even launch a majority of the time. If you enjoy the recon class don't plan on any good sniper nests, mastering bullet drop mechanics (basically absent), or finding any places to see enemies long range. If you play on a normal server everyone may as well have an ESP hack. If you are even remotely in someone's line of site you get a big red dot over your head. The semi-auto rifles are fun and effective once you unlock them. Granted, MoH is more in line with the classic FPS format and Warfighter definitely holds true to the MoH franchise, I didn't see much innovation here. Nothing MW:2 didn't achieve a few years ago. In my opinion...older FPS games were better designed and thought out. Seems like they focused more on the stats, social network, and loadout system than they did map design and gameplay. I understand it is better than MoH 2010 but since it is right on the heels of BF3 and uses the Frostbite 2 engine we know what it is capable of and Warfighter certainly doesn't take advantage of it to its full extent. It sits right next to it on battlelog...so I expected it to be at least at the same level. At the very least maps along the lines of Close Quarters but they are even more limited and confined than those. Fire teams are a great feature. If you are paired up with a buddy or a good player you can do some real damage. If you're with a tard consider yourself solo! I'll keep playing. It is very fun, extremely easy, and very approachable. It just won't replace the depth of strategy, amazing environments, and diversity in gameplay that I find in BF3. Expand
  5. Oct 28, 2012
    10
    Its a good game with a few rough edges. It is only being hated because it doesn't have some sort of bombastic single player. If you don't care for single player then you are in luck as the multiplayer is a nice Blue versus Blue take on FPS and looks brilliant on PC. I also love the nations section as it is sort of being part of something greater, which you do not often get in some FPS games that are more often than note generic US v Russia games. So why people are hating on it is beyond me, its a good game.

    GET: If you are mature and light tight action and good graphics with tons of customization.

    DON'T GET: If you are an offline/single player campaign person and do not have any patience.
    Expand
  6. Oct 23, 2012
    10
    The graphics and realism in this game are unprecedented. Just wow! Storyline is well tied up and multiplayer beats CoD, being much more immersive. This is a real jewel that few were expecting.
  7. Oct 23, 2012
    4
    Very boring FPS (typical **** from Electronic arts). Typical arcade FPS with low realism and the typical theme about killing "bad terrorists". The game is nothing knew for the genre and the single player part is very boring and run-of-the-mill
  8. Oct 24, 2012
    10
    Absolutely fantastic game! The graphics are downright incredible when max settings are turned on. The game has both an excellent multiplayer suite and a really fantastic campaign. Although I somewhat enjoyed the campaign in BF3, the campaign in MOH easily surpasses that experience. It seems that many gamers are not always huge fans of cut scenes, but I feel like these cut scenes really added to the experience and helped me to become more emotionally invested. Don't listen to COD fanboy haters. You really need to pick this game up. Also if you are not a fan of Battlelog system, you can access multiplayer from within the game menus. Don't get sucked into any of the negative hype, Medal of Honor: Warfighter really is a great game. Nice work Danger Close! Expand
  9. Oct 25, 2012
    9
    I think the one thing EA about MoH failed at was to explain to it's purchasers what the game is. If you played the last version, well you should know. This game IS on the Frostbite 2 engine, but that doesn't mean it's going to be the same time of game as Battlefield 3 is. (just think back to all the games that utilize Unreal 3 engine)

    This game is best described as EA's competition
    to Call of Duty. Some people think Battlefield 3 is. No way, Battlefield 3 is in no way like CoD. That's what Medal of Honor Warfighter is for. Battlefield 3 is very expansive and more like an open world battlefield (and vehicles). Whereas this game is much more along defined paths, but with a decent amount of nooks/crannies to flank opponents.

    I like CoD, but I think there is room for many types of FPS/TPS. Of one type is MoH.

    It's got great graphics. Not perfect, but it's also a different style of game. It's not an expansive map, it's on a smaller scale like CoD. I play the game at ultra settings, so the game looks really good. Again not perfect, but very nice. Thus like CoD it is a game where you have to traverse either fast and risk getting killed, or slowly and surely. It's alot like CoD, but also got it's own flavor. It's hard to quantify, because BF3 is such a different experience that most games default to 'more like CoD'. Because anything that's not like BF3 is more like CoD. The gunplay is good. Though I've only used a few, they seem good. I can deal with the kickback of guns, that's what they do. But also I realize that not all guns are the same, there's lots of different classes with different guns and unlocks to customize the gear that needs to be unlocked, so it's still early for even those that hate the kickback to rail on about all the guns having too much. Unlock some more guns, try different classes, as well as the attachments, and you might find more guns to your specific type of play and desire.

    So when I say CoD is similar to it, it's because it is. But again it's also quite a bit different. So the people that are saying it's not CoD and those that are saying it's like CoD are both right. It is both like and unlike CoD. Doesn't seem to be quite as demanding on the gfx card. Close but not as much. (of course that's without any new nvidia drivers). But I'm easily getting 60 fps with max settings with a GTX 670 and an i7 920 @ 4ghz. So it's very playable. I'm getting the impression about the destruction elements that these are going to be reserved for later games on the Frostbite 2 engine, when more and newer/better graphics cards are out and installed in the user base. While the Nvidia 6XX and the ATI equivalent probably could handle it, most people are still using Nvidia 4xx and 5xx (and ATI equivalent) tech, so I can understand why the destruction isn't there. Plus it makes more sense in a BF series than a MoH series as people would just clear the buildings and every map would end up 'open'. Still would be nice to have some, but I can understand why it's not there. I'd expect BF4 to possibly finally do what they wanted on this note and really up the destruction.

    Again having played both the beta on 360 and now the PC version, the two graphically aren't even close to each other. The PC version on ultra is vastly superior to the 360 beta. While I haven't played the PC version of CoD, the 360 version is laughably inferior compared to PC MoH on ultra settings. Huge difference.

    This review is about the multiplayer, not the single player. While most people trashed the single player of CoD and BF3 for being short, it seems most are saying MoH is short as well. So things are pretty equal, except without some of the better unique moments seen in the others. You can use your 360 controller or obviously KB+M, or even a hybrid of 360 controller in place of WSAD on the keyboard and mouse for precision and quick aiming. Overall this game is fun, it's a shame people are dragging this game's score down because of

    a) They somehow incredibly got the idea that this game was going to be like BF3 (how I don't know)
    b) Those that thought that, generally hate CoD, and thus don't like this game
    c) Bought a game known for playing multiplayer and yet hate on the barely used and cared about SP and just like it's peers, its a short campaign
    d) are playing the game at lower than ultra settings and don't think it looks good

    If you knew what to expect from this game, and don't have a hate fest for CoD, and don't care much for SP portions of FPS (me I NEVER play the single player campaigns of online multiplayer shooters)...then you should like this game and find it quite good. Torn between giving it an 8 or 9 (because it takes a great game to be 10), but since everyone is hating on it because they thought the game was something else when clearly it wasn't going to be BF3, I'm going with 9.
    Expand
  10. Oct 23, 2012
    7
    Well i see that the "wishers" arrived at this party as well, if you dont own the game or played beyond beta please find a new hobby, people come here to try and make informed decisions based on other gamers and trolling, fanboyism and flat out just writing for the hell of it continues to ne the rabies of Metacritic and i wish only confrimed owners/users could enter. I have read a few great user reviews just want to further support what i feel are facts and toss in a few of my opinions in as well. As you notice there are no reviews by critics on the left side and well thats because E.A did what is not very common and keep this game out of the hands of mainstream critics until the day of release or after = no day 1 reveiws and that was worrysome to me but i was already invested so sit , wait and cross fingers was in full effect. For those looking for innovative or unique single player campaigns which wiill exceed 7 hours (being generous) well look elsewhere if this is the main focus of why you want to buy this game, the game isvery generic in terms of hold handing and the way single player fps missions do for the most part in this gen = Objectives which take little strategic elements and heavily scripted and "been there done that" mode of run gun and shoot guy when and where they tell you = triggers cutscene/next mission. I was very disappointed but not shocked that it would be a linear exp but disappointed none the less because the trend is single player is more of an after thought to what has become a dominant mp pressence in fps genre now-a-days and breaking from that mold is asking too much when this is the safe way for devs and publishers to design and pump out games Godspeed due to lack of content so often th mp will have to fill in the gaps and we will come back to that to see if it can have a good enough formula that will make many fps gamers ok with such a lack luster campaign. but because the industry views us gamers as buying games that are creations of this design as votes in the poll of what sells well they wont change much of anything especially when sometimes games can also have record sales year after year using this trend. I cant take away from the fact that yes the game does look sometimes gorgeous / stunning and no body loves destructable enviorments as much as myself so the explosions, lighting and backdrops can sometimes just make you want to stop for a moment and look around just to take some of it in but there are also moments that will not be so pretty/less detailed and borderline drab city but thankfully those very far and few. Some of the guns are the best i have seen yet but some are "who the fck designed these ones" but the optics almost picture perfect, they sound great and imo as "realistic" as it gets in a video game and the sounds of explosions will rumble on your subwoofer in grande de force so visually and sfx are anove average and sometimes very much so. The gunplay doees feel worthy and to this day i would like to see a heavy "kick" factor w/ high powered sniper rifles or hmg's , althought recoil is present i would like there to be more of it in certain classes of guns which i mentioned which is just my personal taste and can be fixed w/ a patch easily if decided to do so. Here is where it gets tricky. The gunplay and pretty solid gameplay is only as good as the A.I and if the A.I is rather "unaware" than it can have the effect of dumbing down the elements that feel good because whats the sense of having the best compond bow money can buy if one is only going to hunt tree sloths with them. MP, well lets just say that imo the mp does not have enough strengths to forgive the sp and linear maps in a campaign ok i get it but bottlenecked and linear do not belong in mp and only certain fps designers can bring forth a winning formula for the ones that have success w/ linear mp maps. It also dumbs its own brilliance down because the fire teams are elite but the maps leave much to the imagination in respect to utilizing such elite ops tactically , the layout is very unforgiving at times especially for those who want to strategically dominate oppo's rather than bottleneck them or get bottlenecked by. The mode are meh but i love the HR mode. Yes i have small gripes w/ the twitter feed esq H.U.D but im running out of letterd i can use,lol. For sp i suggest renting and for mp well i also suggest the same, try it b4 purchase is a strong recommendation. The game seems to try and climb upwards but only to get kicked down by its own foot. The recipe was there but the ingredients did not come together as good as the menu suggested hence not leaving a sour taste but the craving you sat down with still being present. not a bad game just more of the same so a solid 7 Expand
  11. Oct 25, 2012
    1
    LAME - that is the word that unfortunately came to me when playing both single player and multiplayer. I don't understand how people claim this game is better than MOH 2010 - I really enjoyed that game, especially multiplayer - so much more immersive than this effort. I was looking forward to this for a while but I don't think I can even get through the campaign let alone play more than a few minutes of multiplayer. Expand
  12. Oct 23, 2012
    10
    I am a HUGE FPS gamer that was incredibly disappointed with the 2010 MoH and was apprehensive about picking this one up...boy am i glad I did. The class system is great, the graphics are beautiful on max settings. Very fast paced, the gun play feels better than CoDs, fireteams is great. Overall feels like a very polished multiplayer experience and I can't wait to check out the single player missions!! 9/10. Expand
  13. Oct 26, 2012
    8
    I'm a single player-only player and I must admit the campaign is, well, relatively short.
    However, Danger Close did a great job on bringing the unnamed heroes concept into the story
    Also, the details of the game is great. The SFX are great.
    This might not be the best shooter I've ever played but I definitely had a great time with it.
  14. Oct 24, 2012
    3
    tl;dr: Pass on this game, it is pathetic and if there were not an EA logo plastered all over the place, you might think it were a F2P indie game.

    Full Review: I was excited about this game, truly. I am an avid BF player and, until MW3, an avid CoD player. I play both games competitively and I am, without trying to sound too arrogant, a very good player. I played the original MoH, and I
    marginally enjoyed it. The MP wasn't great, but it was manageable. I heard that this game was supposed to fix the problems of the previous game and be a great infantry shooter. Boy, was I told wrong. This game, being completely frank, is WORSE than MoH 2010, if you can consider that possible. The movement and aiming is sluggish, the menus are the most non-intuitive possible, the hit detection is atrocious, the damage is outlandish, and the overall gun play is probably the worst I have ever experienced in my 18 years of gaming.

    On the bright side, the campaign is decent. But if you are going to spend $60 for a campaign game, at least buy one that will last you more than 5 hours.
    Expand
  15. Oct 23, 2012
    9
    As far as the gameplay, it definitely takes some getting use to. Especially if you are use to BF3 like me. After a few games though I was really enjoying myself, but I did have a good partner to buddy up with, which is a must for victory and high kill rates. Graphics wise there are aspects that looked better in BF3 and other things that looked better in MOH. -Plant life looks better in MOH
    -Indoor lighting was better in MOH (almost a Metro 2033 look and shine to the lights!) Red dot receptacle & mussel flash also has a more realistic look and glare to it.
    -Structural and gun textures I give it to BF3
    -Sunlight glare also to BF3.

    Sounds were kind of a hit and miss for me and my 5.1 headphones. Some guns sounded too hallow, other were right on. But bullets sounds where amazing. You can hear them whizzing by you head very clearly and gave you a sense of rush and adrenaline. Foot steps also sounds much more realistic than BF3.

    In general I give the game an 9/10. It's map layout has close, tight corners similar to BF3 CQ, but with a different style. If you like BF3 large open maps with many vehicles stay way. If you like non-stop action, close quarter style, hand to hand combat its a great shooter to add to the collection.
    Expand
  16. Oct 24, 2012
    1
    I wish only people who actually bought the game could review this, because most would say it is terrible. There is a reason EA handcuffed reviewers with a day one update, the game is actually worse than the 2010 MOH. It continues to try and be Call of Duty, contains a pathetic 3 hour campaign, and has multiplayer that won't even dent Battlefield 3. Keep playing BF3, or wait for Black Ops 2, when a game tries to be something else you might as well play that something else. Expand
  17. Oct 23, 2012
    10
    Warfighter is one of the best shooters of this year, the Campaing may be a bit short, but it's way better than Battlefield 3 Campaign. The Graphics are Amazind, Sound of Guns are great, and the Multiplayer is Awesome.
  18. Oct 25, 2012
    9
    Can't believe the haters out there.. just proof the shooter genre is full of brutish punks that only like what they already know. I feel bad for the developers who see these scores, because really this game is RIDICULOUSLY FUN!! Graphics are awesome, but for me it's really the pace of the action and how the design encourages buddy play... and the mix of classes and support actions you unlock during play. I'm guessing that a lot of the idiots giving this game a 5 played one match and thought they saw all there is to it... No, there's a ton of progression here...weapons, new skins, mods.. very cool. And seriously.. How many developers do a beta/demo and actually listen and improve stuff with a day 1 update?? If this were another publisher, there'd be a patch a month after launch.. Maybe. Thanks Danger Close and EA, you guys did awesome and clearly care about what you do. Lovin it Expand
  19. Nov 5, 2012
    4
    Another linear FPS game like Call of Duty series & Battlefield series. Explosions, Car chases, I've seen most of it in movies. The plot is too overused.
  20. Oct 25, 2012
    10
    moh is its own unique game not battlefield or cod, so people shouldn't compare the two. This game requires skill in the mp department the maps are fairly made, lots of customization for guns(50+ camos)
    5 game modes each using different parts of the map making for a fresh experiences in each one.
    Im rating this game an 8 but ill give it a 10 simply because of the ridiculous low ratings
    that but hurt people seem to give. Single player is fantastic with good visuals and extremely solid voice acting, coupled with an innovative way to breach doors its really stellar. Expand
  21. Oct 26, 2012
    9
    Lets start by saying that the game is unbelievably beautiful and it stands out along with the battlefield 3, its stunning visuals is not the only thing it brings along a perfectly told story line , which brings along personal and military aspects, but deep through this brilliant game is some flaws, the main problems that you will face is texture popping and some linear fight scenes and on top the battles take place in a map that is to set up...... but over all i love the game and it is beautiful and fun game and it is worth going and buying :) Expand
  22. Oct 24, 2012
    3
    A mix of the worst game design decisions in first-person shooters for last 10 years. Even Call of Duty manages to deliver better SP than this. Damn, even MoH 2010 SP was better in some ways. MP feels boring too, not much difference from 2010. I don't know why EA tries to "re-launch" MoH franchise and makes same mistake a second time. If you want to re-launch, make at least decent game, not this crap. Expand
  23. Oct 25, 2012
    8
    First of all, don't trust the critics' reviews for this game. It's a ton of fun. While it may not be very original, neither are the yearly increments in the Call of Duty series but critics always drool over those games. The 2-man fireteam system is a very fun dynamic and the overall feel of the game is pretty damn exciting. Plenty of customization and the neat option to choose from several different special ops soldiers. Expand
  24. Oct 24, 2012
    7
    It's okay. I have about 2 missions left on the single player. Honestly, I feel the frostbite engine could have been used better. Also the single player is just too short. I spent about 3 hours playing through the single player and I'm almost finished with it. The multiplayer also is pretty buggy. There are occasions where I spawn outside the map bounds. While that doesn't happen very often, it's frustrating to have to wait to die AGAIN to good a good respawn. Multiplayer itself doesn't feel smooth enough to me. The appeal of CoD and the other shooters is that it feels smooth. Warfighter just doesn't feel like that. The guns recoil patterns just don't make much sense too me and some of the design choices are kind of questionable. I do like the hardcore mode in this game. Also fireteams seem like a good idea but if you get a bad buddy in your fireteam it really is a bit of a handicap. I can't count the amount of times where my fireteam buddy was AFK so I had to keep doing the "Fall Back" spawn, which spawns you far from the battle. The maps are okay but I don't really like how cramped it feels sometimes.

    I'm glad I picked this up for only 30 bucks because I probably would have passed if I had to pay full price on this. Wait for a price drop before you buy because this is not worth full price.
    Expand
  25. Jun 9, 2013
    4
    this game is awful. just dont buy it.
    singleplayer is just enemies popping out of cover and waiting to get shot for 5 hours.
    multiplayer is boring and doesnt offer anything new.
  26. Oct 26, 2012
    2
    What a disappointment, I really have nothing good to say. I like the graphics and the sounds but thats it. The story is boring and repetitive. Seems like all the maps are based on each other, they are all boring too. If you played the MoH from 2010, you know what I mean. There is really nothing good about this game. MoH has gone in the CoD direction but with a little more realism and better looks. Still, a polished turd is a turd. Expand
  27. Oct 23, 2012
    3
    This is a very generic shooter the usage of the frostbite 2 engine is laughable. Nothing like bf3 as far as engine use. This is really just a console port in 1080p. Graphics are bad and textures are bland compared to bf3 which we was told it would look better. Also EA wouldn't release any review copies prior to release and that should tell you something the game is ok at best.
  28. Oct 24, 2012
    1
    Great looking game, Mediocre sound effects and music, Great car chase scene. Ok good part over, Single player is very poor, Over the top totally unrealistic (Infinite ammo and grenades gg) Missions are very very bland, Run stop at shooting gallery kill 50 npcs move to breach door rinse and repeat. Voice acting is horrible and the cut scenes try to inject emotion but fails miserably,One thing though the car chase mission is actually really good shame the rest of the game is just shoddy.

    Multiplayer is not so bad but with the other options we have for FPS fix this will take a back seat.
    Expand
  29. Oct 23, 2012
    8
    not exactly what i expected, but after playing for a few hours it starts to grow on you. The different game types are about the same with little differences. Overall not a bad game but definitely not revolutionary by any means.
  30. Oct 23, 2012
    8
    The game's campaign has been very good. I do not know why i see some idiots (Yes, sorry for words) saying ''Linear'' because this is where you fail at knowing what is a Medal of Honor game, it is a Real mission, or atleast 90% Based on a Real Military Operation (Just like MOH 2010).. So maybe it's nothing new, and ? It talks about reality, not a COD run in the bunch and berserk kill everyone... As for Multiplayer maybe the maps could be a bit bigger, otherwise the game is all fine for me. Was just willing to give those calling the Campaign ''Linear'' a good and big laugh. Anyways, if you like Real Military Stories, that is what MOH has always been made for. If you want Rambo super-crap without Realism, go play COD. Have fun ! Expand
  31. Oct 23, 2012
    3
    A generic shooter nothing more, if you are looking for something new dont buy this game. 6 hours campaign, extremely linear, hand holding game (treats you like a child). Mediocre at best.
  32. Oct 26, 2012
    9
    This is a great fuking game.We waited and for damn sure it was worth the wait. Greg, and all you oaks there at Danger Close that brought us this. Well fukin done!
    Yeah single player little short...too fukin bad, play it again!! I'm having a blast its everything and more that I expected. The MP customs are just out of this world....You oaks go and give yourself a pat on the bag and these
    fukin moaners, next time they moan about something great they'll moan without balls because I would've cut them the fuk off before then. Expand
  33. Oct 25, 2012
    9
    m playing only MP. It's awesome. I've had a bad time for the first couple of hours of playing it, because it was really hard to adapt after playing BF3 for so much time. But I waited with my opinion and now I'm sure - this game is awesome! People just expect it to be a new version of BF3 without vehicles, but surprisingly it's not. It's really something different. Mechanics is different. Recoil control is different. Those are just to different games. You will have tons of fun, but don't expect it to be easy at start, just because you are good at BF3, and don't expect you will be rushing alone and killing everyone without any help, because you will have a bad time. If you really want me to compare this game to any other it would be CS, where fearless rushing and killing everyone alone is reserved only to best players. Expand
  34. Nov 1, 2012
    10
    This game, like many other hidden gems, often puts off people with the patience of a squirrel, where I think the majority of the unfairly negative reviews are coming from. Most people expect it to behave like Call of Duty and when it doesn't, bail. Mindless if you ask me. It takes time to learn a new game. Once done, this game is an absolute blast and has several things going for it most PC shooters don't have anymore: dedicated servers, leaning, crouching, realistic ballistics (recoil, bullet drop)and far fewer bunny hopping, rage spewing, quick scoping 14-year-olds out there to spoil the fun. There are more weapons and attachments in this than any other game EVER. This game is seriously fun, and despite the professional reviewers out there who are crapping all over it (because of blank envelopes stuffed with cash they were handed by Activision, I suspect) it IS DIFFERENT. It is unique, not "seen it all before". Any reviewer who says that has to have either played it for only 4 minutes or is on the take, one of the two. Expand
  35. Oct 26, 2012
    0
    I am a big fan of Battlefield 3 and I enjoyed Close quarters expansion a lot. I do not play singleplayer in any of this game so my experience comes only from the multiplayer part. I thought that this game will be another good addition to Battlefield since it uses the same engine and published by the same company. But don't get fooled, this is a cheap game with graphics worse than Call of duty and game play even more outdated. Maps are poorly designed they look like made up of squares and very claustrophobic and unattractive environment. Invisible limitations as for example you can't climb on the cliff in the middle of the map because of the invisible wall. I was shooting from the lying position and I got shot and kill camera displayed me in standing position when I was shot also when you die it looks like there is only 1 animation for death. Controls feel unresponsive, animation of the soldiers look very bad. I do not recommend this game to anyone and I regret spending my money on it! Expand
  36. Oct 26, 2012
    0
    Some scripts don't work for no reason and you have to start the mission from the very begining. If you want to quit the game you've just thrown to the PREVIOUS mission or the game just crash. The resolution sometimes changes with NO reason. I guess Danger Close hasn't finished their work. That's the question: why should I buy a piece of alpha version?
  37. Oct 25, 2012
    7
    If not Call of Duty this game will be good, but when you compare with call of duty its become bad, i dont know why but call of duty have more detailed graphics and more fun gameplay
  38. Nov 14, 2012
    1
    This game is a joke! 1. Outdated graphics 2. Poor AI (Friendly NPCs are absolutely useless, can't kill a single enemy even standing a few meters away from them, enemy NPCs are too static and most f the time running around aimlessly etc.) 3. Poor soap opera story and overlong cutscenes 4. Every single character is a cliché 5. Gameplay is too scripted 7. Maps are too small 8. Gun handling is unrealistic and every weapon feels the same Expand
  39. Oct 26, 2012
    0
    After Max Payne 3 and Syndicate, where was fantastic gameplay and not stupid AI. After them in Medal Of Honor just scared to play, I could not stand more than ten minutes. Medal Of Duty: Modern Warfighter in a nutshell. Keep EA publish terrible shooters who buy monkeys seeing it shows "Frostbite 2".
    Sorry my bed english c:
  40. Oct 26, 2012
    2
    For me this game is a defeat of the year, I had huge expectations through this entire EA marketing, but very much I was disappointed. This game just as well could not leave and nobody would cry, this game was created only for money. The only innovation is playing it in pairs on the multiplayer, omitting that is it is most ordinary FPS...
  41. Oct 26, 2012
    10
    I thoroughly enjoyed the campaign and find the multiplayer to be fairly fun as well. The only thing that was slightly disappointing for me was fact that the developers didn't fully utilize the frostbite 2 engine for its destruction capabilities. Otherwise, I find that this game worth my time and money.
  42. Oct 27, 2012
    0
    I had hopes for this game to be something different in the crappy FPS games that we can buy nowadays. I should have waited for the review, because boy ooh boy how does this game suck! The game is full of bugs which are really annoying during the SP. The PC version has some nice gfx, but the whole thing still feels like a cheap consoleport and it is scripted as hell. There are some part where you actually dont have to do or shoot anything and you sitll make the mission.

    This game is going straight back to the store and I will get Hitman instead. To all those gamers out there that read this, DO NOT trust the high score on this site, because these are not gamers who played this game, but a bounch of fakers! MOH WARFIGHTER IS A REALLY REALLY BAD GAME!
    Expand
  43. Oct 24, 2012
    7
    Warfighter's 4 hour long campaign struggles for inspiration and suffers from lack of identity. There are 13 missions; two of which are somewhat introductory; two of which load in a separate game client (!) and are possibly re-used NFS: The Run assets; and one which lasts for as long as an average NFL play. Missions are messily stitched together and are interspersed by rendered cutscenes that seem out of context; like the author is trying to recall what happened during a fever-induced nightmare while simultaneously telling a bed time story to his child. The 8 meaningful missions each last 20-30 minutes, and do showcase the potential of the Frostbite 2 engine, however - like a flawed gem - the faults cannot be hidden: missions hand-hold you the entire way, are confoundingly linear and suffer from gameplay gimmicks that lack innovation.*****

    The focus of Danger Close has likely shifted to that other facet of militant FPS games - multiplayer. This element of their 2010 release was heavily criticised and it has vastly improved to the point of being a potential replacement for a select audience who want more realism than your average twitch shooter but don't like vehicular combat. I find myself strangely drawn to this exact gamestyle and yet, when in the presence of either of the two giants - BF3 and CoD - MoH doesn't do enough to stand toe-to-toe; seeming rather vacuous and lacking personality - it ticks all the boxes but you don't know what for...*****

    The thing is - I purchased Warfighter based primarily on the strength of the MoH (2010) single player campaign, thinking that perhaps EA were trying something different with DICE/Danger Close than Activision have with Infinity Ward/Treyarch; it seems that I assumed incorrectly. I don't need yet another multiplayer FPS - BF3 is still fantastic (as is CoD 4 ;) and has extra content being brought to it on a bi-monthly basis. Why can't a modern shooter be sold on it's campaign? Perhaps I am one of the few who still enjoys a well told story...*****

    MoH: Warfighter suffers from an inconsistent campaign and brings nothing new to the multiplayer arena; however, Danger Close do show some potential and perhaps their next title will not be so compromised - for now, 7/10 - higher if you like the MP but lower if you're after a satisfying campaign.
    Expand
  44. Oct 27, 2012
    0
    Waste of money I wish I knew before spending $80 on origin.....Just wasted money, time , effort..EA your MOH time is over sto living in the playstation era....EA are just as bad as UBISOFT releasing half **** software with no support......If EA screw up DEAD SPACE 3 then I'm not gonna by there crappy products....
  45. CBZ
    Oct 25, 2012
    5
    I wanted to like this game but its impossible.
    PROS: None so far
    CONS: Maps are tiny, no cover, you will most likely get shot within 10 seconds of spawning. Cant climb on many objects and pathways are pre-designed, so no creativity to hide or jump around. Graphics are sub-par considering it has the Frostbite 2.0 engine (same as Battlefield 3) and there is no destruction AT ALL. It really
    feels like a 2006 game with bumped up graphics (for 2006, not for today).
    I bought it last night and I'm seriously considering not playing this game again after I finish the campaign, which is also mediocre at best.

    NOT worth the $60 they are asking for.
    Collapse
  46. Oct 26, 2012
    8
    Great atmosphere, solid game-play and great graphics. The Frostbite engine does it's job here. Compared to any Call of Duty game this game looks much better. The single-player campaign plays very smoothly. Don't expect any innovation though maybe except the car chase that feels like a real racing game. The multi-player is awesome and really makes players cooperate.
  47. Oct 24, 2012
    8
    MOHW single player is an uneven experience. The beginning levels, frankly, are very poor and reminds me of Shigeru Miyamoto's advice; design your first levels last. I played the campaign over two nights and pretty much all of the first 2/3rds of it was dreadful. Then, I got to the driving level which I thought was completely awesome and fresh, I hadn't seen anything like that in an FPS before. The final level, unfortunately, was a pain - I had trouble completing the final breach and the checkpoint was pretty far back (not to mention a level bug that wouldn't allow me to move forward.) It just feels like they didn't play test the single player at all. Beyond this, the plot itself is pretty pedestrian. That's not to say that you can't make an exciting campaign from the subject matter, but I found reading Mark Owen's No Easy Day a heck of a lot more interesting than this. The player has to see at least a piece of themselves in the story's characters, and the plot isn't fleshed out enough or told in a compelling enough manner for the player to be able to relate to it on any level. If Danger Close doesn't hire a strong writer for the next game, they should probably skip the single player all together. That said, the multiplayer is just amazing. How can Danger Close produce a game that's not like anything else in the market? They ditched the multiplayer design of 2010's MOH and looked to EA's FIFA for inspiration (of all things). It's a clean tasting experience that goes down smooth and is totally satisfying. The player learns very quickly that they need to work with their assigned buddy to get anywhere, and the game is very facilitating in this regard - your Fireteam partner is auto-assigned, easy to find on the map and easy to follow around and coordinate with. My only complaint is that I wish MOHW had a way of listing former Fireteam buddies that are met randomly so that in case I have a good time playing with them I can easily add them to my Battlelog list of friends and find them next time I'm on. A missed opportunity, but maybe it'll be patched in. Anyway, get through the single player campaign as quickly as you can and move on to the multiplayer. Terrific game. Expand
  48. Nov 2, 2012
    1
    I had to revise my previous score. After trying to struggle my way through the SP campaign I find it appalling. If had never played an FPS before it might not have been so bad but this game is only a waste of time and money. I've heard that triple A titles are going away but I hope it's not to be replaced by triple C titles. Seems no one (besides gfx and sfx department) gave this title any love.
  49. Oct 26, 2012
    8
    Seems these so called critics have been drinking too much of the COD cool-aid and thinks any other shooter is ass.If u liked the first one,u will definitely enjoy this one.
  50. Oct 26, 2012
    8
    I don't understand why everyone hates this game. I enjoyed MoH2010, and I've been having a blast with this game, too. The pacing is somewhere between CoD and BF, with slightly more realistic gunplay than BF. The campaign is decent; the story is a little cliched at times, and it isn't as authentic-feeling as MoH2010 (which most OEF vets I know say is probably the closest to the actual feeling of fighting in Afghanistan). That said, it definitely has some great moments. The multiplayer emphasizes teamwork. You have to work in fire teams (of two players) to be effective. It usually works well, but you're pretty much screwed if your buddy decides to quit in the middle of the match. There are 6 classes to pick from (with each tier 1 unit represented in each class), but except for the sniper and machine gunner, most of the classes feel pretty similar. Several reviews have pointed out bad menu design and bugginess but I haven't really noticed either. The menu is pretty generic, and I've encountered far fewer bugs than I did with BF3 at launch. Everyone also says it's unoriginal and not ground breaking, but I don't have a problem with that. It's not meant to introduce completely new features (except for the slightly original fire team system that allows you to heal and resupply your buddy), but I think it does everything pretty well. I got this for $40 because I have BF3 premium, and I think that's a fair price. Expand
  51. Oct 27, 2012
    10
    Not sure what the general beef is with this game in the media. I predict this will be a "sleeper game". I can't help but think Black Ops 2 has everyone on the payroll... The battle log interface is legit, gameplay is butter smooth as is the interface. Don't knock it until you try it and keep in mind reviewers are reviewers, they aren't always gamers. It's better than MW3. Reviewers once said EQ2 was better than WoW... Expand
  52. Oct 27, 2012
    1
    I could care less about the singleplayer which is always pointless in these things but the multi's awful as well. Maps are downright amateurish with invisible walls, bushes you can't walk thorugh, windows you can't break, no destruction, can't jump on diddly, no bullet penetration. Outdoor settings are made of 'blobs' of rock that serve to make claustrophobic corridors and the visuals are just pants, check out i.imgur.comcW8OM.jpg Expand
  53. Oct 27, 2012
    8
    I would give MOH WF multiplayer 7.5.
    It has well balanced and diversified class specialties, weapon customization. It doesn't quite play like all time run 'n gun COD nor plays like all time hard tactical shooter like ghost recon or rainbow six. It has some good mixture of both nature of the shooters.
    At the same time, it has solid hit detection, good enough player base 24/7, built in
    VOIP, teamplay promotin buddy system. Overall play experience of MOH WF MP was that it's pretty robust and solid all around. In short, if you like tactical shooter like rainbow six and still want something a bit arcadey, or if you got tired of all too arcadey run 'n gun shooter, this game would suit your needs. BUT! might be a little too expensive for ppl who's not so much enthusiastic about tactical shooter to pay the full retail price. Expand
  54. Oct 27, 2012
    8
    Well I was a bit worried as this title was going down the road of COD, and being the between BF3/BF4 project using the same era and engine...but I liked the last MOH game so gave it a good run through last night. Basically the single player campaign is VERY GOOD, very much as good as Bad Company 2's was so thats a one up on BF3 straight away. The new leaning mechanics are a bit weird but are actually very handy once you get used to it... feels a bit like the Rainbow 6 vegas cover system without the wall locking, again **** tonne of weapons... more than BF3 and they feel less hobbled and more meaty when being used.

    So what about multiplayer? graphically a bit weaker than single player, but still pretty decent (running on my GTX580 in ultra) and felt very fluid if a little smudgey (probably a FXAA filter being used?). The maps are a right rabbit warren of cover and sneak zones, which feels a lot better than the previous MOH games open run and gun gamplay... although edge of map invisible walls is a bit noticeable in places, this feels very tactical in a Ghost Recon sort of way, sure it s a bit of a mashup of all 3 big name FPS games... and the majority of it works, it feels very fresh and the game modes are generally good. Maybe the reviewers should have used the massive patch fix before going into the game, 'cos to me this is a winner at least on PC, maybe not a BF3 beater but certainly up to anything I've seen from the CODMW/BOPS factory and worth a look... also bear in mind I had BF3 premium and got this game half price thanks to Origin's discount scheme. EA becoming customer friendly.... WTF next....lol
    Expand
  55. Oct 28, 2012
    9
    Have been playing for about three days now, mostly multiplayer. I started off getting really frustrated with the maps, gun play etc and pretty much rage quit after the first hour, was going to uninstall even. But had another go, and as weapons are unlocking and the attachments are made available its opens up and I'm totally loving it now. I play these games for gun play mainly, it needs to feel like the actual weapon, ballistics etc, and they have nailed it here I think. The weapon customization screen and models are perfect as well. Sound is fantastic by the way, best shooter for that.

    I really dig how they have represented all the spec ops teams around the world, you can see the effort DC have put in here and I like this realism factor (ok its a game i know, but they haven't made it over the top like other games which I think is a plus).

    The graphics, I've got everything on ultra (i7, 470, 8gig) and its easily 60fps. Some of the textures are a bit washed out in places, but other scenes look amazing so its had to call. Overall the detail in the levels is really good, a bit more destructibility would have been nice though, but it does exist.

    The maps are a mix, some I love and others seem a little unbalanced. Hopefully a map pack or two coming down the track. Grenades are very had to predict, would like the warning to work a little better.

    But to sum up some of the best, intense fire fights I've ever played in in FPS.
    Expand
  56. Oct 27, 2012
    7
    Single player- If you can deal with your teammates pushing you out of cover all the time and terrible enemy spawning the single player is pretty good
    Multiplayer - Strange unlock system. I have a good 3 hours into it and am just now finally understanding what's going on. gameplay's pretty good. only complaint is between rounds is really boring.... nothing to click on, nothing to look
    at.... just sit there..... Expand
  57. Oct 26, 2012
    2
    Same generic shooter we game every couple months. It Doesn't change anything, linear campaign and awe-full gameplay. Using the Frosbite 2 engine isn't making any better. It's like taking Battlefield 3 and creating a different story line. Very disappointed of what I got. I really liked the MoH 2010 and this? not even half of it.
  58. Oct 26, 2012
    5
    Been there, done that. That's all I can say for this sequel to crappy reboot of a once awesome franchise. The campaign: Call of Duty 4-wannabe (you know the drill: Move from A to B & watch set-pieces , sniper missions, breaching slow-mo's, 'stealth' missions with intentionally brain-dead&blind AI in rain/darkness, the cliche' helicopter sequences with the minigun/heavy machine gun OH LOOK, SHOOT EVERYTHING THAT MOVES on the grounds and OH beware of dudes with RPG's on rooftops!' **** etc etc etc zzzz) all rapped up in Battlefield 3's brilliant engine. The MP: Battlefield 3 without the vehicles and the fact that you can customize your guns. Literally. Why would I want to pay $80 for a shooter that's just another generic/cliche' modern shooter when I have so many others that are the same already on my Steam library? Oh its pretty you say? How about undestructible environments? You shoot the blood wooden plank. It doesn't shatter like it would in BF3 or CoD:MW3. It just stays there with bullet scraps. Seriously? Oh and yep, it has Origin. Another put-off. Unless you're a spoilt 12~16 yo immature douche with parents who constantly shower your with gifts and you looooooove your cliche' modern shooters, then yes, you'll love this game (feel free to change the score to a 10/10, heh). For the rest of us, spend your precious money elsewhere such as pre-ordering Far Cry 3 or Bioshock Infinite. I really wish EA would've just kept the MOH franchise a WWII SHOOTER with an excellent legacy of games loved by gamers of all eras. Instead, they have decided to try to cash in on CoD-obsessed ignorant 16yo douches who dont know better by literally turning the franchise into **** R.I.P Medal of Honor. You will always be a terrific WWII shooter franchise in my books and NOT a generic, cheapass modern shooter dependent on the money of ignorant douchebags. Expand
  59. Oct 26, 2012
    8
    I am really disgusted by the fact that many game sites gave this game a negative review especially IGN. I admit this game does feel like its rushed and sort of unfinished with bugs everywhere but look at COD, every one of their game suffers a bad first month but every fker out there still gave it 9 or 10 saying its the best and all that crap. The single-player of this game maybe heavily scripted but its trying to bring out a story and I like the fact that most of the mission are INSPIRED BY ACTUAL events. However one down side is that you could keep requesting for ammo. The multiplayer may feel abit buggy but its still great and new. Not with the same old formula that COD uses. The new fireteam buddy system is AWESOME if utilized properly it absolutely rapes. The gun customization is awesome too with me spending up to 5 mins per gun. Still I am hopeful that more patches by Danger Close would be able to fix this game. Expand
  60. Oct 27, 2012
    0
    This game was a major let down. There's no destruction! Has bugs in everything! Single player is really short! There one mission that only lasts TWO MINUTES and its POINTLESS! I still don't know the characters and completely don't care. Its really sad for a game like this that has to pull the controls away from you just to show you a scripted event, like an explosion! . The graphics in multiplayer doesn't look like the FB2 engine. A lot of the unlocks in multiplayer are pointless. I thought each country soldier had its own different abilities and equipment? That's a lie! A polish soldier is no different from a South Korean one. This game is so bare bones of a shooter, its not even funny. The only thing that's different that they added is the fire team. Problems of Spawn trapping is still there from the first game. Plus that authentic real feeling is no where in Multiplayer. It takes too many bullets to kill someone even aim for head shots (expect for snipers). If you played BF3 a lot, your going to have a real tough time adjusting to this game. Bf3 has a more quote" real authentic feeling " end quote then this game . I'm tired of CoD, but I have to be honest that Blackops 2 is going to be so much better then this crap. No wonder DC didn't release this game to reviewers earlier. Expand
  61. Oct 27, 2012
    3
    Many say this game is rushed but nothing such. This is what it really is. They are using Frostbite 2 which is in use on Battlefield 3, it is refined and graphically gorgeous, most of the job is already done by DICE, Danger Close have to take it tweak it a little, make a few multiplayer maps, throw in a mediocre campaign and their done. But they fail everywhere, even the engine is buggy and you have to wonder how considering DICE has ironed out most of it, just shows you how brilliant the team at Danger Close is, round of applause, while a talented studio like 38 Studios is out of business DC gets a second shot to make another shoddy game. Here is what is wrong with the game:
    - Maps are way too small, corners are tight and if a team is holding top point you are doomed as you will not get through, if you are getting shot you cannot take cover behind anything because there barely is anything, and you can't dart into a corner because most times the maps are linear and its forwards and backwards until you get the options to turn left or right, oh wait your dead.
    - Gameplay in general is like every other game, except this one feels a little more sluggish, probably because of the constant need of having to scope in to shoot, because hip fire is awful and your bullets are like bb pellets they do absolutely no damage so you can't miss any shot. Fireteam/Buddy seems pointless to because if you are playing with someone you don't know they will just go off on their own and I shouldn't be expected to follow them if they keep running into DEATH, also spawning on them is another issue, when they are seen by the enemy the timer shoots up to 4 seconds and everytime they are shot or spotted again it happens all the time. I recommend falling back all the time, you can get to them quicker like that. The lean feature is also dodgy with it forcing you to hold alt and direction meaning you cant actually move your character when leaning.
    All in all this game is terrible, a few changes are obviously coming through patches, better map through PAID DLC unfortunately, I know it sucks, those map can be even worse though. Your better off buying BF3 or any Call of Duty title ANY CALL OF DUTY IS BETTER THAN THIS. Battlefield 3 can offer close quarters with a better feeling, can give you mini maps from its giants and not suffer from it. Want an FPS? then this isn't it.
    One example of a bad map: Think the game mode was RUSH not sure what it is called here, but we had too fall back and we were forced to play in a small mansion, the cut off point of combat area was also ridiculous considering our enemies could spawn there and snipe all they liked without us getting close, it was literally the middle of the combat zone in logic, but DC decided to cut it off because their idiots, haven't they made a game before? Thanks for reading a little rushed, see this is probably what rushed looks like, but this game has mostly been in development for 2 years, it uses a brilliant engine, all it needs is a few drawings of maps and done but they failed. I would give the game to a different studio, not DICE they're busy making awesome.
    Expand
  62. Oct 28, 2012
    0
    I have spent nearly 800 hours playing MOH2010, mostly in combat mission. I bought this game to have fun playing that mode. Unfortunately, there is no way to have fun. Small maps, not designed for combat mission at all. As a defender after bomb goes off you are out of boundaries and have to run or you die in 10 seconds. How stupid is that? Serious issues with hit detection and damage, very slow switching between hip fire and optics. Compared to MOH2010 the game feels slow, no dynamic, no fun. I play only at good ping servers ( Expand
  63. Nov 11, 2012
    6
    Like a classic game in shooter category,but with usual typical scenario, without special scenes and action.For your personal play collection,play the game have fun and, that's all!
  64. Oct 28, 2012
    8
    You have to give this game (campaign mode) a chance to progress. It doesn't start off well and can put you off easily. The story is great and the gameplay improves immensely. The guns feel more real than any other game. The addition of some vehicle chase action added a welcome change to the game pace. I felt like I was playing Need For Speed. I really enjoyed that. Unfortunately, it is not a well polished game and at times felt like an arcade game, particularly gunning down well marked targets on the ground from a chopper. Overall, the story was moving and the game just got better as I played it. It does deserve a good score and it does deserve to be played. Expand
  65. Oct 24, 2012
    6
    Graphics are good, and it is somewhat fun if you have a team mate who speaks english and uses the fire team properly. Voice chat is terrible, and I hate the small maps plus you can't jump on rocks or anything else. There are also invisible walls everywhere which are super annoying. Save your money, and wait for BF4. I think this may be the last MOH game released because this may easily lose EA a lot of money. Now it makes sense why they didn't allow review copies sent out early, and also heavily discounted it at 50% off to premium bf owners. Anyways now i'm ranting, the fact is don't blow your money on this game. Expand
  66. Oct 27, 2012
    7
    Pre-ordered MoH Warfighter for BF4 beta access, with low expectations. After finishing the campaign and playing a good bit of multiplayer, I must say that the game is pretty decent. I'll start off with the singleplayer; The story they want to tell is interesting - how a soldier's life affects a family. This could've been interesting and added a lot of emotions to the game, but for the most part it's pretty poor. I was never really able to fully grasp what the objectives of the enemies were; if they had put in more consequences it would've added a lot of drama that would've spiced up the story quite a bit. It has a lot of Hollywood-elements (for example lots of explosions, cranes falling on you etc). It would probably be overdramatizing it a bit, but the story needs to make you feel like you're actually doing something important. When it comes to the gameplay - the shooting is good, and the weapons feel great. But that's pretty much it. It's very linear, you'll constantly meet groups of enemies (I mean a lot), and generally what a mission consists of is just clear out these massive amounts of enemies. This can take a while and will eventually grow boring, and the horrible AI doesn't help out either. Your mates will rarely hit, and sometimes allow the stupid enemy AI to just run at you, and stand right beside you when you're trying to kill something else. For highly trained soldiers, they really really suck. You'll often find yourself very vulnerable because of your fellow soldiers' inompetence. The game does allow some variety, sometimes you're a chopper gunner, other times using a robot (of sorts) to clear out an area in advance. Sometimes you'll get to snipe, or call in an artillery-strike somewhere. Other than that you'll find yourself pretty much only moving forward to see more bad guys you'll have to spend 5-10 minutes killing every **** time. They also added some driving missions (yes, driving), where you'll... have to drive a car, to either chase someone or escape. While cool the first time, you'll come to a second mission where you're trying to avoid being spotted by enemy cars by hiding and **** The first driving mission was good and added variety to the game, but when they added the second... I asked myself; am I playing a shooter, or **** Need For Speed? Because it seemed like I was playing the latter. In short: The story is interesting, although the storytelling sucks monkeydick. Levels aren't vary varied and it gets very tedious after a while. Now for the multiplayer: This is where the game is best. Obviously the biggest part of a shooter has become its multiplayer, something MoHW is able to pull of pretty well. The class-system is good, and that you can change between different soldiers is cool. The weapon unlock/customization, on the other hand... It's extremely annoying to navigate and you get a very limited amount of weapons to use at the start. You don't even get to start with iron sights, something I find very annoying. You get new weapons/customization features by acquiring new soldiers (that you get through ranking up). The server browser is OK, but there is one big issue. You can't see if a server is hardcore or not. Speaking of hardcore - you get absolutely no HUD (you can't see amount of ammo, radar, etc), but there's one thing that's extremely annoying about it. You don't get any notification when you kill someone. It adds to the "hardcore", but when two people are shooting at the same person, you don't get to see who killed him without checking tab first. There are a few gamemodes - plant/defuse bomb, classic TDM, sector control (conquest, essentially) and Home Run. Hotspot/Combat Mission is where the attacking team plants bomb, defending team defuses. Simple enough. Home Run is capture the flag, really. The rest should be self explanatory. In game you get a fireteam-buddy, a great feature IMO. You can spawn on him (as long as he is not endangered). The game-modes are all quite fun, although the maps aren't very open and have a lot of narrow corridors, so you have to concentrate to avoid getting smoked. This can get especially annoying when you're trying to attack an objective, as these areas can easily be locked down. And the fact that you can't kill someone with three - THREE shots to the head doesn't help. From a distance, that is. The amount of damage your weapons do is so low that it's absolutely ridiculous. Shooting from the hip is impossible, as your accuracy pretty much falls to 0. Even while looking through your sights, you have to spend a good amount of ammo to kill someone. This is extremely annoying and you'll often feel very cheated. This ruins the flow of the gameplay, and enemies behind cover can be an extreme pain. That's not enough - most of your teammates are **** who'll ignore any objective, and just go for kills. But when the game works as it should - it's very fun to play, Can recommend if you have the patience to ignore its faults. Expand
  67. Oct 28, 2012
    2
    Poor game, this game was obvious rushed, but they had time to create the next map pack, the game is full of bugs and unbalanced weapons if your thinking of buying this game DON'T!, they're not going to fix this piece of junk, you cal also tell they let console idiots beta test this game because the amount of issues it has.
  68. Oct 29, 2012
    10
    A really good game if I may say so, action and tension.
    on a really good level. Graphics & Sound & dubbing of the characters are very well done. What is a given is not always definitely the German dubbing. The multiplayer is a mixture of Battlefield 3 and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare third but something to get used to, but otherwise TOP 10/10!
  69. Oct 29, 2012
    9
    (Multiplayer only review!!!) Am glad I didn't wait for the reviews before getting this game! It's tense, exciting, visceral and hard to master. The recoil and real feel of combat in MOH2010 is back, perhaps not quite as well done here, but still the best around, better than BF3. Doesn't look quite as polished as BF3 with some of the avatars in some light conditions, though the environments are just as good, and sometimes (in sunlight conditions) it looks photoreal and is unsurpassed. The maps are smaller than BF3, sometimes you can't climb on/over things you hope to like you can in BF3 and was a bit disappointed about this, but here is the real crux of the game. It's the only game where you better watch your buddy's 6! It requires you to be on the ball and careful, so don't even mention COD in the same breath. This is an amazing experience which will reward team play like no other. the precision is amazing. Within these smaller maps you really experience almost non-stop the infinity of possibilities of combat in 3D! The many decisions you make will mean the difference and run and gunners will not like it so much! I have had no probs with collision detection. The user interface is a bit confusing, also the nations, VOIP, team member nationality / squad choices, but not poor and archaic like Ghost Recon FS. Buy it if you are up for a challenge, this requires skill and you will find your time rewarded! Highly addictive and not fantasy like BF3. Recommended. Expand
  70. Feb 7, 2013
    10
    first i played cod black ops 2 becuase the review said this game is tarrible but after i played mohw i now know why a lot of people saying that battlefield and medal of honor are batter than call of duty i dont get it why this game get just 55/100 it should have get at least 87/100 i think that cod black ops 2 is good but this is way batter that bo2.acually i didnt like so much battlefield 3 so i thought it will be the same but i was wrong buy it you can find it on amazon for just 30 bucks Expand
  71. Oct 26, 2012
    5
    First of all, I would like to say that the game overall is only sub-par and will not blow your mind in any way. It runs on the Frostbyte 2 Engine, the same one used in Battlefield 3. Let's start off with the campaign. The Campaign was a (now) AAA first person standard 6-10 hour deal (If you play semi-fast/fast). There were a lot of explosions and scripted moments that reminded me of the Call of Duty series. Sure, Call of Duty wasn't the first to invent this type of gameplay, but Call of Duty is probably the most prominent. The map designs were not shocking at all, they were sort of ugly in a way. The lighting was good, the details were there, but the layout of them just urked me. The bots would pop out of nowhere (literally I watched them spawn in thin air) and they weren't intelligent either. The "on rails" parts of the campaign were quite bland. I really hate comparing to Call of Duty (which I dislike), but the enemies just stand and shoot at you like robots. Sure that may be realistic when all you have is an AK against a Helicopter, but that doesn't make the game fun at all. It needs to be more "theatrical". I also didn't like the fact that guns were lacking in the game. I know as well that most forces have only two or three main guns and one sidearm mainly used, but the "authenticity" isn't working out here. My opinion would be simply more guns, a lot of modern guns haven't been explored in video games. Now onto the utilization of the Engine. I felt like destruction was lacking. There was less micro destruction than in Battlefield 3, and when there was micro destruction, it was tactically useless. No one hides behind the crates and plywood in Multiplayer, they are running and gunning (unlike Medal of Honor 2010). The textures were obviously console quality, blurry, grainy, etc. No Field of View adjustment really hurts this game in Multiplayer. There are a lot of moments where is I could see more I would die less. A lot of times people can run around you without seeing you and you seeing them. It is semi-difficult sometimes to cover multiple hallways and corners at once because you vision is either non-existent or in the peripheral vision. I also simply do not like the gunplay. It is "anywhere between 2-6" shots type of shooting. Of course, I fix that problem by going on Hardcore. But, it makes regular core pretty not fun to me. The guns recoil in a zone between a little too much and way too much. It makes long range combat useless for certain classes (with small guns) and useful for certain classes (with long guns). I also liked that the points and support action system returned to MoH. Though I hate that it isn't numerical anymore, the support action system provides satisfying support. The Multiplayer maps are terrible. They are extra small but the gameplay is (what I feel) made for semi-open maps. Compared to MoH 2010 which had more support actions though, only 4 actions are available. Overall MoH Warfighter was a rushed and poorly designed project. Expand
  72. Oct 28, 2012
    4
    Single Player bit:
    I actually really enjoyed the first Moh from Danger Close. It was more realistic then CoD story was not hollywoodish and gameplay was good. My expectations were more or less the same maybe a bit higher since the game was moving to Frostbite 2 and seeing what BF3 could deliver, I think that expectation was not ungrounded.
    Unfortunatly those expectations got blown after
    30 minutes of playing.
    First : This is Frostbite 2? Why is it that BF3 looks a million times better, plays better and has a better feel to it.
    Then the AI of the uber Tier 1 operatives is so bad, that I actually have been backstabbed by enemies alot of times because my AI teammates can't kill or hit anything and the enemies just run through our lines....
    Also it seems Danger Close knows something about the tech of the US army that we don't.
    Wood is the new über kevlar, you cannot penetrate it with any weapon.
    I though a full auto shotgun should be able to shred plywood without too much trouble.
    I'm half way through the game and honestly I can't be bothered to continue. WORST GAME in the last 5 years...

    The multiplayer isn't bad but nowhere as good as BF3 or CoD to be honest...
    Anyway this game is not worth the 50
    Expand
  73. Oct 29, 2012
    9
    single player review: I don't understand all the negative reviews, i found this game to be action packed and a lot of fun to play! took me about 9 hours to beat in hard mode. I completely enjoyed the story line and the realism with the plot which makes you wonder how the world really is. If you are a veteran MOH player then this game is well worth your time!
  74. Oct 30, 2012
    10
    Awesome Physics Effects In The Game Makes Like Real World Military Operations.
    The Game Has Some Crashes Due To Scratching Sound Effects, But That Can be Ignored.
  75. Oct 31, 2012
    10
    The multiplayer was often called generic, yet it actually features one of the most unique mechanics in a first person shooter of any genre
  76. Nov 1, 2012
    9
    The single player campaign is ultimately where this game shines, and while it may not be a diamond, you can definitely tell that Danger Close put some effort into it. There will be times in the campaign where you sit back and go "Wow", and there will be times where you just want to bash your head into the screen, but that's what makes it a good story. My only wish about the campaign is that I would like to have seen it be longer, and I am hopeful that there will be DLC for it in the future.

    On the multiplayer side of things, there are a few *minor* launch bugs, which Danger Close has stated they are working on, and I'm sure they will resolve them. However, for the sake of this review, we will focus on the multiplayer *intended* aspects. The biggest downside of Medal of Honor: Warfighter's multiplayer is simply, it's trying to do TOO much. It's trying to grab the CoD crowd (let's be honest here), trying to recruit some BF3 fanatics, and it even takes some lessons from Homefront. The problem is, when it tries to bash these ideas together, they don't work seamlessly. While the gameplay ultimately doesn't suffer because of this, you can definitely tell that it's intentions were not as clear and defined as a shooter today needs to be.

    Another unfortunate downside is that the unlock system is not made clear. While in a game, you can tell what you're unlocking right on your in-game screen, which is a nice little feature, but why? There appears to be no rhyme or reason for the choices of unlocks that Medal of Honor: Warfighter gives you. I may be missing something here, but I have yet to find a solution to this question. Ultimately, it doesn't bother someone like me, however - as I'm in it to unlock everything anyway, and I'd imagine most other people are the same.

    Some good notes is that FINALLY a game has done party play appropriately. This may not seem like that big of a deal, but go play BF3, or even COD:BO and try to join a game as a party. Most likely, you will not only be in different squads, you'll be on a different team. That's not fun when you're trying to play together. I have YET to be tossed into a different team, let alone a different fireteam while using the party system here on Medal of Honor Warfighter. Not to mention it allows you to pretty much get your entire platoon into a party, and manually setup fireteams as you need them. Major thumbs up.

    Finally, looking at the bread and butter of MoH:W is the nations aspect. The one thing we all saw when watching those commercials. Unfortunately, I have to say it's pretty much a gimmick. The thing here is that you first start by choosing your soldier. The options are limited, and few. For myself, I ended up choosing a SEAL, though I was looking for an Irish soldier. No such luck. After selecting your soldier, you need to choose a nation to fight for. I, of course, selected Ireland. It didn't do anything for me really, other than putting the Irish flag behind my soldier. You go into multiplayer, win some matches, collect tokens, and you put them into your nation for a bonus, and to increase your nations rank. Doesn't really tell you why you're doing this, and really there doesn't seem to be a point. There are some bonuses you get for day after day putting tokens into your nation, but so what? When I was watching these commercials, I was hoping for - well for instance, USA vs Russia playing against eachother. But, as I've come to see, all nations fight with all other nations, and there's no real in-game mechanic to differentiate. Now you're probably reading this review and saying "He gave it a 9, but he had all these downs to give it, why?" Here's the thing folks - no shooter anytime soon will change the way shooters are today. This game is a good game not because of what it does wrong, but because of what it does right. You have a community that cares for the series, and a developer that wants to make it right for that very community. I absolutely LOVED the campaign, I may even end up playing it again. The multiplayer doesn't do anything NEW, per say, but it doesn't do anything badly either. If anything, the one thing that multiplayer could have done better was develop on the nations aspect, and that would have set it apart from the other shooters out there today. Having said that, it is still a breath of fresh air when it comes to the shooters we have today. It's pretty much taking a deathmatch-ish game, providing some cooperative aspects, and it does it well.

    If nothing else, head to a friends house and try this game out. It is worth the play.
    Expand
  77. Jan 29, 2013
    10
    OK I cant believe this got such a poor critic review. MOH is all about the single player campaign which I knew before I bought it. Campaign blows cod and BF series out of the genre as far as storytelling and realism. You feel like these characters are the REAL PEOPLE, not just cheap liberal voice actors. As far as the multiplier component, although not bad, is why i have BF3. I have played most shooters and this series is hands down always the best at keeping it exciting. I always get bored with COD. BF campaigns are a joke. ARMA is fine but the graphics...piss poor. GOOD JOB DANGER CLOSE!
    Graphics-9/10
    Multiplayer-6.5-10
    Story-10/10
    Sound-10/10
    Controls-5-6/10 (This could have been better)
    Expand
  78. Oct 31, 2012
    8
    Warfighter is another shooter with lots of explosions and spectacle. It matches the pace set by other popular shooter titles, so in that respect it accomplished what it set out to do. Compared to the previous game last year the story seems a little more over the top, where as the earlier game seemed a tad bit more down to earth, but none the less it is still a fun ride. That said I wouldn't really recommend it as a purchase, the multi-player is decent but with Black Ops 2 around the corner I can only suggest Medal of Honor: Warfighter as a rental. Expand
  79. Nov 4, 2012
    2
    This game is a load of garbage, buggy as hell, laggy as hell, unbalanced as hell, cluttered as hell and unoriginal as hell..What the hell was happening in Danger Close's mind eh? This game just ruins the MoH franchise..The single player? What the hell is that?
  80. Oct 29, 2012
    5
    The gunplay is decent but there are so many bugs, getting kicked out of servers, amazingly hard to get into a fireteam with your friends (you have to do it prior to the game start and even then its a gamble), spawning and not being able to move and having to suicide time after time and a multitude of other issues make this game impossible to recommend.

    Good thing I bought it for
    half-price cause it sure as hell ain't worth full price, I would wait untill it's worth a tenner on a sale provided that they actually fix the bugs and there are still people playing it which I think is questionable. Expand
  81. Oct 25, 2012
    5
    It has potential but everything about it is a clusterf**k. The game menu is a maze...I have to button mash just to try to find out how to change my loadout. If I wanted to get noob tubed for the entirety of a match I would go back to modern warfare 2. My 'buddy' apparently went to go do something or other and never came back to the game...did the game kick him? No, he never spawned and I never got a different teamate...and there is no option with which you could change to a different partner either. I didn't even touch the single player as I figured it would be a steaming pile of excrement. Expand
  82. Oct 29, 2012
    4
    New type of review:

    1. From load-to-gameplay (-3): - Unskippable opening splash screens (Company/Game/Engine logos etc.). - 4 menus to gameplay: - "Origin Login" (could've been done in backgroung), - "Press enter" (We can all agree that this menu can be wipped out of the face of gaming, once and for all), - Singleplayer/Multiplayer etc. options menu, -
    New game/continue etc. options menu. - Absence of option to instant "quit to desktop" from gameplay. - Longer waiting times, from load to gameplay due to all the above. - The many menus (2 or 3 level menus) and options increase/add to the general clutter.

    2. Cutscenes/Loading screens/Gameplay (-2): - Unskippable cutscenes. - Unpausable cutscenes. - Difference between the cutscenes and gameplay video/graphics takes away deeper game immersion. - Transitions from gameplay-to-cutscenes-and-gameplay-again are rough/bad and instant without any fade in/out music or theme part. - Very bad women characters models.The men models were generic but OK for a FPS, but the women were just plain awful. - THE BEARDS.

    3. Unfinished/Rushed-out feeling (-1)

    -------------------------------------------------------- - Gameplay (6) - Graphics/Video (8) - Music/Audio (4) - Story (2) - Character Connection (2) - Overall game immersion (2) - Drama (2) - Action (6.5) - OVERALL (4) - Recomended Yes/No (No)
    Expand
  83. Oct 27, 2012
    5
    let's keep it short and sweet cause I detest long drawn out rantings. gameplay: 5/10 ai is ok, game is very linear (go fig), nothing new or exciting graphics: 5/10 nothing new or spectacular, kind of a CPU hog, crappy framerates controls: 4/10 really "chunky" and awful. lot of times it feels like you're controlling a retarded gorilla not a spec ops soldier audio: 1/10 the audio actually plays as it's supposed to maybe 70% of the time and the rest of the time it just skips and crackles like a CD scratched to hell. Just awful

    Honestly, I should've waited and bought it a couple of months from now when Origin drops it down to $20-30 like I did the last MOH when Steam had it for $5
    Expand
  84. Oct 28, 2012
    7
    i don't understand why its so bad yes theres bugs but bf3 also had them on the pc its good its still better than cod and bf3 in my opinion ok i admit the campaign sucked but the multiplayer is glorious
  85. Nov 4, 2012
    0
    Thought the game was pretty average, the shooting mechanics were worse than the 2010 game, the driving mechanics were ok though. Then I exited the game for half an hour, after checking the mission select first and saw that I was on the last level. Then when I went back in, my save data was gone and I had to start again. I had been playing on Hard too. I tried to get support and got none. I have now uninstalled the game and hopefully trade it back in, I'd even trade it for a stick of gum probably Expand
  86. Oct 30, 2012
    3
    multiplayer critica...Bien....la verdad esperaba otra cosa de este juego. yo buscaba algo realista algo distinto (veía algo distinto algo prometedor mi debut con MHO fue una desilusión ) y parece que todos los juegos van a seguir la linea del call of duty ("juego que para mi es una reverenda MIERDA!!!"). y bueno esto viene de EA. "que puedo esperar de esta gente".....
    si te
    gusta la mierda del cod o el bf3 ni lo pienses, seguro que te va a gustar como la gran mayoría de la gilada.....si buscas algo realista algo distinto a lo q se viene jugando este no es tu juego... (es mas estoy pensando en vender mi cuenta de origin)
    voy a seguir jugando a mis juegos favoritos RO2, cs:go, dod:s ......
    Expand
  87. Oct 27, 2012
    7
    The game is not what i expect, I think I was better than BF3
    But this is an exact replica with a few changes to the graphics, the plot and the way you play the game, frustrating

    believe two things:
    A ʹ. Can something above the EA and Danger Close
    B. An analogy of the first MoH(2010)
  88. Oct 29, 2012
    0
    Absolute fail on Pc in every respect. Not one thing good to say about it. Multiplay is plagued with deal breaker's spawning under map repeatedly. Kiddies playing with gamepads and auto aim against legit PC gamers. Just plain gone to far when they build the aimbots into the game. This happened in the last one too. So they just don't learn from their mistakes. EA has truly lived up to it's title "the worst company in America." I'm sending this POS back. Expand
  89. Jul 18, 2013
    0
    Please do NOT buy this garbage just ignore it completetely .
    I have nothing else to say ignore this sentence it's to make my "review" 150 characters long
  90. Oct 26, 2012
    6
    After playing through the single player and thoroughly enjoying myself in the good combat and great graphics (playing on ultra) i expected much of the same in multiplayer. However, in multiplayer the graphics even on ultra are lacking in every way. When i shoot soft cover it's bullet proof and when i try to break down a wooden door it shows zero damage. I expected environments to be manipulated with the frostbite 2 engine, but it's just a subaverage shooter with lots of bugs. Many times i would be spawned underground or in a section of a map where i couldn't get out of so i would have to respawn. This happens every 20-30minutes and can get quite annoying. The guns and sounds feel authentic, but the aiming system feels very wobbly and unreliable most of the time. The maps are very bland in color except for one. In this day, when i start running into false walls and bullets being stopped by overlapping graphics i'm pretty disappointed. I do like the party system so you don't have a ton of people talking at once, however, in the 100 or so games i played i never once had a party member that actually talked and/or listened. I think if you played only with friends this might be fun. If you want to just hop on and expect a social partner you'll be disappointed. Overall, personally i got the game cheaper through origin's pack deal and i enjoyed the single player, but it's focused as a multiplayer game and thats where it failed to me. If you want this game for the multiplayer aspect i would suggest only playing it on a console. Singleplayer score: 8
    Multiplayer score: 4
    Overall: 6
    Expand
  91. Nov 1, 2012
    5
    I got all the MOH series and I can say this one has the shortest Single-Player story. Previous one had really good stroy but this one is crap. Other than Door-Braking-And-Playing-MaxPayne, there is no new cool stuff. Forget the new stuff! There is no "destruction" feature from existing Frostbite engine either. There is also no (other than credits music) music/OST like we used to have from old MOHs.Ah, this Need4Speed-MostWanted car scenes wasn't necessary either. I am a hardcore Battlefield player so I can tell that they have been using this game as a Beta test for the upcoming Battlefield game. They are expecting from us to play Multiplayer-Mode, so they could use the "tested" multiplayer/in-game battlelog framework for Battlefield 4.


    There is of course nice scenes in the game. But, overall, game is not promising neither for BF4 nor for MOH-next. For the sake of old MOH series, I give 5.
    Expand
  92. Nov 4, 2012
    4
    "So played MOH DoorFighter .. Completed the Campaign.. Its poor and repetitive but visually stunning. The Multiplayer is all the worst bits of COD with the hit reg of BF3 and some weird ass random spawning on most levels.. 4/10 at best.. Don't waste your ££" 1 hour ago
  93. Nov 11, 2012
    10
    Before I tell you why this game is the better shooter per this day and deserve 10 points on my scale, let me tell you why most people flush it in the toilet.
    Its about taking time to get to know a game and learn it. I think that the reviewers out there have SKYHIGH expectations about this game because it's being developed by danger's close. I am the kind of gamer who likes the different
    games because i've grown tired of CoD and BF. And thats because there's no variation in those games. But in MoH:WF you have full customization on guns and solidiers, every class have a special ability, and there also is a correct running mechanism and LEANING mechanism which works very well. I think the most wellcome'ed thing about the game is the special abilities. This have been developed to have a solution for nube-toobs without taking the noobtube away from the noobs. For example Spec Ops-class have an ability called "Scan" wich gives you heat-vision through walls for just a sec and give you better control for the situation, this way, the nubetube is no longer in court and judged by the more experienced gamers. The only "neg" I have to report is the maps. They're not bad at all, but they're confusing at first and not as good as the old MoH2010 maps. But in terms of gameplay and fun a clear 10! Expand
  94. Nov 14, 2012
    10
    great single player mutiplayer is fun to play Warfighter is a huge succes The Graphics are Amazing, Sound of Guns are great the dlc looks good to . As far as the gameplay, it definitely takes some getting use to
  95. Dec 4, 2012
    10
    este juego es al estilo de battlefield o porlo menos en video y sonido si le falta mas aun en cuanto a juego en linea pero es buena historia siento que juego una pelicula es cargado de adrenalina pero si creo que le falta mas misiones par ajugar
  96. Nov 18, 2012
    10
    The Single player is fun. Its good mindless entertainment. The SP alone would rate about 7. The MP is what makes this an a 10. The MP is a good change of pace from other modern shooters. Guns have recoil, and you die very quick. The sound and the atmosphere is very good. This game is a very tactical shooter, you must learn to control the recoil and firing from the hip will not work. Do not buy this game and expect an cod clone, it isnt... Expand
  97. Apr 20, 2013
    9
    I bought Moh:W 3-4 days ago. And i started playing MP firstly. I loved all weapon custom system. There are much more camo than COD series. Also, 6 classes. Classes are pretty good. I haven't understood kill streak system yet. In SP, my game frozen sniper chapter. I will continue tonight... Til sniper part, game was perfect for me.
    In MP, MP7 weapon is OVERPOWERED, i think. As you can
    see, so less recoil while shooting. That's why %70 percent of players prefer Spec Ops class. Point Man class remained me "What is that class?" impression.
    Overall, my score is 7. People might not like this game, but 5.3 score is less than Moh:W deserved.
    Expand
  98. Nov 5, 2012
    10
    First off this is a SPECTACULAR GAME!. There must be some type of conspiracy against the Medal Of Honor Game. I love it! Great graphics great sound, and the best gun mechanics I've ever saw. I mean these guns feel and respond authentic. If you like fps/war games, support this game. If you don't we'll be stuck with the same old same old year after year. Two thumbs way up!!!
  99. Jan 25, 2014
    10
    I think this game is awesome. I haven't played multiplayer yet, but the single player is really fun. The game looks great. I usually don't enjoy the single player of first person shooters. I am glad I got this game and didn't listen to the bad reviews.
  100. Jan 26, 2013
    0
    Zero score. One of the worst modern fps game i ever played. EA and Danger Close killed MoH franchise.
  101. CBZ
    Oct 25, 2012
    0
    I wanted to like this game but its impossible.
    PROS: None so far
    CONS: Maps are tiny, no cover, you will most likely get shot within 10 seconds of spawning. Cant climb on many objects and pathways are pre-designed, so no creativity to hide or jump around. Graphics are sub-par considering it has the Frostbite 2.0 engine (same as Battlefield 3) and there is no destruction AT ALL. It really
    feels like a 2006 game with bumped up graphics (for 2006, not for today).
    I bought it last night and I'm seriously considering not playing this game again after I finish the campaign, which is also mediocre at best.

    NOT worth the $60 they are asking for.
    Collapse
Metascore
55

Mixed or average reviews - based on 30 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 30
  2. Negative: 6 out of 30
  1. Dec 2, 2012
    30
    Plot holes, broken scripting and offensive self-contradiction makes Warfighter one of the worst games we've played all year. [Dec 2012, p.85]
  2. 60
    Common military shooter with minor technical bugs shows all the elements we have seen before. We've expected much more from the legendary Medal of Honor series. [Dec 2012]
  3. Nov 29, 2012
    50
    Due to unreliable scripts and other technical issues, bland and chaotic storytelling and stupid AI I played Warfighter strictly out of obligation and not for fun. Decent (but unbalanced) multiplayer is not enough to put other label than 'mediocre' on a game that was supposed to be a major hit. [13/2012, p.36]