Medal of Honor: Warfighter PC

User Score
5.4

Mixed or average reviews- based on 594 Ratings

User score distribution:
Buy On

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. Dec 1, 2012
    7
    I have been very pleased with the singleplayer part of the game, very good storyline, even the multiplayer part is great enough but i am so disappointed by EA help line, encountered some issues and needed help, well EA helpline as been the best of all in the recent years, now it is simply impossible to reach them, the online contact us doesn't work, the links to log in or request help areI have been very pleased with the singleplayer part of the game, very good storyline, even the multiplayer part is great enough but i am so disappointed by EA help line, encountered some issues and needed help, well EA helpline as been the best of all in the recent years, now it is simply impossible to reach them, the online contact us doesn't work, the links to log in or request help are broken, can't log in to get help. and now i just installed windows 8 and can't play online anymore as the platform is incompatible for online gaming. at least origin help line works and the fellow been able to explain this to me. thumbs up for origin, thumbs down for ea who were unable to get ready for the new windows and now seems to hide from us. Expand
  2. Feb 21, 2013
    7
    I like this game and EA/Dice screwed the pooch on this one. It could of been handled better and should have been delayed instead of releasing a game that needed to be patched. Unfortunately they didn't patch it right away and it lost a lot of people. When they did release the patch. The patch didn't do much for what the community wanted. The devs stated on Battlelog forums that theyI like this game and EA/Dice screwed the pooch on this one. It could of been handled better and should have been delayed instead of releasing a game that needed to be patched. Unfortunately they didn't patch it right away and it lost a lot of people. When they did release the patch. The patch didn't do much for what the community wanted. The devs stated on Battlelog forums that they kept a lot of stuff in game that the community didn't like. That and the patch being released a few months after it was released was a little to late for damage control. This game could have been great. Expand
  3. 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 veryIt'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
  4. 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 greatWell 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
  5. Sep 23, 2014
    7
    Multiplayer Review:

    (+) Gameplay. Feels like Frostbite 2. (+) Map Design. Well balanced for each team and each classes play style. Like that you can almost always "take the high ground" for a tactical advantage, or get into the thick of it. (+) Recoil. Its good to be playing a game with recoil again. (+) Its not Call of Duty or BF3:Close Quarters. Those games force you to run
    Multiplayer Review:

    (+) Gameplay. Feels like Frostbite 2.

    (+) Map Design. Well balanced for each team and each classes play style. Like that you can almost always "take the high ground" for a tactical advantage, or get into the thick of it.

    (+) Recoil. Its good to be playing a game with recoil again.

    (+) Its not Call of Duty or BF3:Close Quarters. Those games force you to run around the place and scramble around corners. MOHW has different pacing. The way I play anyway, you need to take your time moving up, working with your fireteam buddy.

    (+) In-Game VOIP. After playing BF3 for the last year, I was really afraid MOHW would use the same crumby voice chat system.

    (-) UI. I keep unlocking things, but have no idea when or how to do so. I just play and hope I'm unlocking something I want.

    (-) I wish the bullets had some more bite to them. I don't like that there's a lot of recoil and unrealistic bullets. You kind of need weak bullets with no recoil, or realistic bullets with lots of recoil. I favor the latter. (That may be something I need to just adjust to, but thats how I feel at the moment.. I should step back into MOHAA/COD1/COD2 before guns became recoil free... and see how those guns were balanced)

    (-) Not supporting my 6850 Crossfire. One card is idle. Newest driver, newest profiles.

    (-) No FOV Slider... I want to bump that up to about 90-100 in-game.

    (-+) Multiplayer graphics. Without my second card, my graphics power is on the weak side so I've been playing on "Auto" which seems to be around "high" settings with a 40 fps. I would like to kick up the appearence and FPS. The driver update just needs to come out.
    Again with the UI... if I make changes to my graphics settings, I'm not sure if any changes are occurring until after I restart the game. There's no message to save, or warning me settings will go in effect at restart.

    So... as of right now, at its core its a good game. People who are used to BF3 and/or Call of Duty expecting this game to feel like one of the other may be surprised that the game does actually have a feeling of its own, and not just a BF3/COD baby. They definitely nailed down some really good things.
    You'll notice in my list of Pros and Cons... I haven't noticed any cons that couldnt be patched very easily. So I'm liking the core gameplay.

    I didn't play MOH(2010) at launch... so I'm curious how I would have felt then compared to now... Still curious how this game will be reviewed, especially since I haven't had time for any Single player which weighs heavily in review scores. They could really knock the game down for its cons I listed, or short campaign (assuming its short).
    Expand
  6. 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
    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
  7. 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 mostPre-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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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)
  11. Jan 28, 2013
    7
    I was looking forward to this game since they announced it. Anyone who played the last MoH knows how great the singleplayer is, and how bland the multiplayer was. This is what I was looking forward to: a solid, immersive singleplayer campaign. Unfortunately, besides the unusually well done vehicle levels, the singleplayer campaign is short and uninspiring. In fact, it felt like itI was looking forward to this game since they announced it. Anyone who played the last MoH knows how great the singleplayer is, and how bland the multiplayer was. This is what I was looking forward to: a solid, immersive singleplayer campaign. Unfortunately, besides the unusually well done vehicle levels, the singleplayer campaign is short and uninspiring. In fact, it felt like it shared too many things in common with the movie Act of Valor.

    The multiplayer is a lot of fun though. The gunplay is pretty solid, the weapon and soldier variety is pretty nice, and Fireteams make teamwork fun and rewarding. The game modes are nothing new, but that doesn't detract from the game itself. What modes it does have are fun and work well with the class mix.

    I wouldn't recommend the game, because it's really an acquired taste, but it is nowhere near the worst FPS I played last year.
    Expand
  12. Nov 2, 2012
    7
    Not so bad attempt to bring some tactics into ModernWarfare-style games. Small maps, fast battles and kill streak bonuses are still in place, but there is no chance to just run circles and kill anyone on the way.
    However, this game is a bit inconvenient now: (1) heap-fire is useless (2) View-mode and Aiming-mode sensitivities can't be adjusted separately and their proportion is illogical
    Not so bad attempt to bring some tactics into ModernWarfare-style games. Small maps, fast battles and kill streak bonuses are still in place, but there is no chance to just run circles and kill anyone on the way.
    However, this game is a bit inconvenient now: (1) heap-fire is useless (2) View-mode and Aiming-mode sensitivities can't be adjusted separately and their proportion is illogical (for me).
    Expand
  13. Apr 21, 2013
    7
    I am flabbergasted by the scores some critics have given this game. PCGamer UK I am looking at you right now! An avid reader for many years, you have only wronged me in differing opinions a handful of times in the 10+ years I have subscribed but 35%??? I had to buy the game before I offered my opinion and here it is...

    YOU'RE WRONG! You scoring technique is flawed... as too are many
    I am flabbergasted by the scores some critics have given this game. PCGamer UK I am looking at you right now! An avid reader for many years, you have only wronged me in differing opinions a handful of times in the 10+ years I have subscribed but 35%??? I had to buy the game before I offered my opinion and here it is...

    YOU'RE WRONG! You scoring technique is flawed... as too are many other critics score cards that people so often look to when considering a purchase. For example, Alien CM got 48%, Brink the online shooter that had more technical issues on release than I care to mention got a quality 78% even though the single player was rubbish and it was purely a online team game that was still severely lacking. Lastly, Duke Nukem Forever at 80% online score but was published in the magazine at 29% so obviously someone got slapped down! But honestly, the games mentioned above are complete rubbish, not just because they are buggy but because they are lacking in one or all departments story, gameplay, originality, etc. Warfighter should not be labelled in the same category and it just manages to pull itself clear... but only just!

    Warfighter tries to be a big screen blockbuster with a story that is bias and researched poorly, but nonetheless still hits the mark on some occasions. This story was more about the family impacts and the brothers in arms that go to war but the impact fails. Not only that, Preacher's wife and daughter are probably the ugliest game characters I have ever seen! It made it difficult to feel emotional attached and my immersion was totally broken when the game was subjecting me to a serious situation and all I could stare at was Preacher's daughter and her massive EARS!!!!

    Gameplay wise, the game is rough but rewarding. The accuracy of the enemy is far too good and you will find yourself being hit numerous times but with no disadvantages present. Instead of being hit so many times in each fire fight they should have emphasised suppression where the field of view gets fuzzy. For saying the game portrays the professionalism of the Forces America has to offer, the game makes you feel really dumb as the levels offer no vantage points, limited cover that actually covers you, limited arsenal and tactics when in fire fights let me throw a smoke grenade!!! The game just feels basic but still, I found myself strangely entertained by the many set pieces on offer. The sound of the bullets hitting enemies and the head shots are executed perfectly but the game just feels like a flurry of missed opportunities every time a new level or section starts. Weapons do feel meaty however but diversity isn't a strong point on weapon pick-ups...

    So far so bad right.... well not really as the single player was still an enjoyable romp but the shortcomings are so apparent it is hard to recommend at full price. I like what they have done with the driving sections as it breaks up the game, but different gameplay options like taking a stealth approach, being able to pick your load out, using some of the weaponry the armed forces has to offer (planes, tanks etc.), scouting for a partner sniper etc. This game just shouts "SAFE... WE PLAYED IT SAFE" every time you start it up.

    Multiplayer is where the values at. Offering up some intense and interesting, all be it, recycled game modes from the multiplayer arena, online is still hugely satisfying. The added feature of having a fire team buddy is great and me and a few friends have enjoyed numerous nights cleaning up levels by working effectively together. Maps are decent but nothing mind-blowing. Weapon customisation is great and adds depth and I think I'll be coming back to this for at least 6 months on and off.

    So all in all, single player wise, the game serves a story that has been written on a cigarette packet at lunchtime after a heavy night of drinking. A story of the good guys bringing down the bad guys whilst dealing with sub-story arc’s by adding the emotions of having a family, the death of close friends, trying to do the right thing and also dealing with a profession where it's either in your blood or not are good, acceptable story additions that most will enjoy. Multiplayer is where the meat is and offers up a great arena for some tense online battles. That's the value side, the single player offers good shooting practice before you enter online.

    The game is worth more than 35% and considering the other games that have achieved a higher score are rubbish, it makes no sense to me! I can clearly see that Warfighter was developed with love but maybe a lack of leadership, inexperience, budget problems, differing opinions within the team... make this feel rushed and sometimes awkward! But to rate this game at 35% is totally unacceptable. It's worth at least 60-70%...
    Expand
  14. Jan 1, 2015
    7
    Score 7/10, if you buy on a good sale price. If it's bought for more than £9 the score goes down significantly. However I do not include the multiplayer content as I never compete online.

    MOH:W is quite short. At 6.5 hours this took me to complete, you need to buy it on a budget price offering. I will no doubt play it again. 7/10 is a low sort of score but only because even when bought
    Score 7/10, if you buy on a good sale price. If it's bought for more than £9 the score goes down significantly. However I do not include the multiplayer content as I never compete online.

    MOH:W is quite short. At 6.5 hours this took me to complete, you need to buy it on a budget price offering. I will no doubt play it again. 7/10 is a low sort of score but only because even when bought cheap it's still a short game. If MOH and MOH Warfighter were stuck together and bought for £10, that would be a good game. (NB Same characters in both.)

    At the start of the game I was shocked and almost stopped playing. The training for teaching which keys etc for scoping and such, is done as a jihadist. This is in stomach churning taste. Simply not acceptable. However you do get to see that training ground's significance later on.

    Anyway I massively disappointedly passed over that and played on. The game itself was good. It flows and is not too hard in any way. Easier to play than the its predecessor. It looks fine too and is well produced.

    Besides the game being good, the hook for me with game became more evident as the game went on. I like the characters, and if the next instalment has them in I would look forward to it for that. The characters are believable and they are examples of soldiers I like to think exist. Simply cool special-ops in action servicemen.

    It's impossible not to feel a sense of connection to real soldiers fighting for freedom, and their lives. It's the third MOH I have and they all make me emotional at the end. It's a glimpse and taste of combat wrapped up a in smooth shooter.
    Expand
  15. Sep 8, 2013
    7
    Bought, played, what to say. Untill the next battlefield, and not very catchy. Dull game, effectively maximum the beginning, and then just monotonous passage, yet soft and dull voice spoils the whole game. I do not know what the developers were hoping to make the game at Frost, or on the label of the series Well there are many small graphics like the pluses, but you can try it withBought, played, what to say. Untill the next battlefield, and not very catchy. Dull game, effectively maximum the beginning, and then just monotonous passage, yet soft and dull voice spoils the whole game. I do not know what the developers were hoping to make the game at Frost, or on the label of the series Well there are many small graphics like the pluses, but you can try it with textures, animation and special effects repetitive but pleasing to the eye. Oh well, on one pass play. Hoped for more Expand
  16. Dec 22, 2013
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Campaign is kind of good, but there are some boring missions and some missions when you got to drive instead of shooting. In the campaign there are also too many doors to breach (what if I told you that every door you breached in Medal Of Honor Warfighter was actually open?) Also when you kill guys with a sniper rifle the bullets fly away from them, like if you aim the center of the crosshair in them the bullet will fly left or right or sometimes even down. Also some missions are taking too long to beat them but I still beat the game in 5 hours. Expand
  17. Oct 24, 2012
    6
    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 cutscenesWarfighter'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
  18. 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 easilyGraphics 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
  19. 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 beAfter 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
  20. 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!
  21. Feb 16, 2013
    6
    I was quite surprised by the quality of the shootouts in MOHWF. It felt really tense and real because A) the visuals are superb and B) the weapons feel real. The locations in the game look astonishing and it felt like these locations are real places with a sense of purpose. I played all of the recent COD titles and although COD is supported by a stronger budget, I think that the shootoutsI was quite surprised by the quality of the shootouts in MOHWF. It felt really tense and real because A) the visuals are superb and B) the weapons feel real. The locations in the game look astonishing and it felt like these locations are real places with a sense of purpose. I played all of the recent COD titles and although COD is supported by a stronger budget, I think that the shootouts itself aren't very tense. You pretty much run and gun most of the time while everything around you is exploding. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy that,too. But MOHWF has a very different and yet very solid foundation which hasn't been supported sufficiently. Instead of focusing on explosions (which COD clearly owns), focus on the intensity of firefights because with the help of the frostbite engine, superb sound and realisitic set pieces, this could be the war game for grown ups. I know they have paused the MOH series because it failed to sell. But it doesn't come as a suprise, it was advertised as yet another COD, the action scenes felt forced and the campaign is 5 hours long which is a shame. Refocus on the depiction of modern war in today's world and stick to realism and it should be a winner the next time around. Expand
  22. Sep 10, 2015
    6
    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.
  23. 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
    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.
    Expand
  24. 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
    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
  25. 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
    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
  26. Nov 14, 2012
    5
    TBH, this sequel to the 2010 Medal of Honor is a huge let down, with the previous installment, we were presented with a somewhat more realistic and believable plot instead of chasing Arabs across the world to kill them in the Philippines ? The 2010 game presented more realistic scenarios, to have been marketed as the most realistic military shooter yet, I was expecting less hollywood andTBH, this sequel to the 2010 Medal of Honor is a huge let down, with the previous installment, we were presented with a somewhat more realistic and believable plot instead of chasing Arabs across the world to kill them in the Philippines ? The 2010 game presented more realistic scenarios, to have been marketed as the most realistic military shooter yet, I was expecting less hollywood and more tactical gameplay.

    Moving on to Gameplay, it's nothing more than BF3 without vehicles, so anyone with the former should just stick to TDM or Rush on it, instead of buying this one for the Multiplayer. And then there's the weird and stupid AI, not to mention watching your enemy popping out if you move too fast.

    Honestly, I think the reason for the letdown for me this time around, was the fact that I actually enjoyed the first modern MoH and owns BF3. If you're a COD fan, I doubt you'll buy this one instead of BO2 though, and if you're a BF fan, I think you'll be disappointed, so I really can't see who will buy this
    Expand
  27. 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 andIt 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
  28. 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
    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
  29. Nov 22, 2012
    5
    Quick honest review, if a closed my eyes and some1 said this is the latest call of duty with new graphics, id beleive them, ......if you like call of duty campaigns you will like this, if your a battlefield 3 fan not so much..... But in my opinion its not worth buying , thats why piracy FTW!
  30. 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,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
  31. Feb 17, 2013
    5
    Poor by where you look. The only thing that saves him is the story. In everything else falls far short. Another disappointment of 2012!
    It brings something new, linear, tasteless.
    The game is not bad but lacked too rough filing.
  32. 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 theFirst 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
  33. 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 fromI 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.
    Collapse
  34. Jan 29, 2016
    5
    Medal of Honor: Warfighter is a flat, one-dimensional experience full of moments that you have seen and things that you have done a million times before.
  35. May 24, 2015
    5
    plot ,dialogue ,mission objective ,gameplay,characters design can be improve.
    graphics is nice

    i assume they are trying their best to make this game better than Cod/BF
  36. Nov 1, 2012
    0
    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 fromI 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.
    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. PC PowerPlay
    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. LEVEL (Czech Republic)
    Nov 30, 2012
    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. CD-Action
    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]