User Score
6.0

Mixed or average reviews- based on 225 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 79 out of 225

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. Jan 3, 2013
    5
    Whatever happened to MoH? The 2010 remake is ahead of this game unfortunately and that's not saying much at all. The campaign starts off promising but after only a few minutes of playing you have seen and done everything there is to do in the entire experience. As for the multiplayer its a cheap call of duty knock off. Although it does bring some fresh innovation to the multiplayer itsWhatever happened to MoH? The 2010 remake is ahead of this game unfortunately and that's not saying much at all. The campaign starts off promising but after only a few minutes of playing you have seen and done everything there is to do in the entire experience. As for the multiplayer its a cheap call of duty knock off. Although it does bring some fresh innovation to the multiplayer its nothing you will brag to your friends about. RIP MoH Expand
  2. Feb 12, 2013
    7
    SP is short and sweet, but lacks proper AI and storytelling. The graphics and the sound are beyond average and show the strengths of FrostBite 2.0. Controls are somewhat clunky and overloaded, but you get a hang of it.
    The MP has some nice new features like FireTeam and a BuddySystem, but can't stay up to BF3 (and CoD).
    Long story short: Not a great game, but worth your time (for a
    SP is short and sweet, but lacks proper AI and storytelling. The graphics and the sound are beyond average and show the strengths of FrostBite 2.0. Controls are somewhat clunky and overloaded, but you get a hang of it.
    The MP has some nice new features like FireTeam and a BuddySystem, but can't stay up to BF3 (and CoD).
    Long story short: Not a great game, but worth your time (for a budget-price).
    Expand
  3. Oct 27, 2012
    7
    Medal of Honor: Warfighter is by far not a masterpiece, but it isn't a bad game either. The campaign has its moments, is short (6 hours or so, depending on difficulty and level of skill) but also tries for the "family" side of war, as it often relates back to one of the soldier's family. There are (currently) a mass of technical issues, however (both in SP and MP), and they will hopefullyMedal of Honor: Warfighter is by far not a masterpiece, but it isn't a bad game either. The campaign has its moments, is short (6 hours or so, depending on difficulty and level of skill) but also tries for the "family" side of war, as it often relates back to one of the soldier's family. There are (currently) a mass of technical issues, however (both in SP and MP), and they will hopefully be fixed soon. The multiplayer is unique, and offers 6 different classes, all with 10 countries to represent each one. There is a mass amount of gun customization, although the unlock system is a mess IMO, as I can't figure out how/when I unlock things. I also have a mass of menu notifications that I can't seem to get rid of. There are pretty standard game modes, and each class has its own tactical advantage, and when playing with the right team, the multiplayer can be a blast. So overall, this game is pretty fun; just don't go into it expecting something amazing. It's pretty much the standard, modern day FPS we come to expect; nothing more. I couldn't see myself coming back to this game a year from now (maybe if they constantly release updates/DLC), but it's fun for what it is. Expand
  4. Nov 1, 2012
    5
    Frustrating is the one word I would use to describe the multiplayer menus. From the confusing and convoluted menus and unlock system to the bland, unmemorable maps that seem to have little thought put into them to the buggy mechanics. The game is supposed to be realistic military shooter, and for the most part it seems that way, but it completely loses that effect with things like specFrustrating is the one word I would use to describe the multiplayer menus. From the confusing and convoluted menus and unlock system to the bland, unmemorable maps that seem to have little thought put into them to the buggy mechanics. The game is supposed to be realistic military shooter, and for the most part it seems that way, but it completely loses that effect with things like spec ops being able to see through walls. The graphics are at times gorgeous, but the experience is 2 steps back - the original MOH for PS3 was actually pretty darned good multiplayer, they tried to fix what wasn't broken and broke it! I'm hopeful patches will improve the gameplay, add better maps and redo the menu system, but that's probably hoping for too much. Expand
  5. Oct 26, 2012
    6
    It's just a solid game, nothing more. The single player campaign is frustrating in several ways. Your compadres doesn't seem to help you at all, the levels are super linear and scripted beyond my mind. "Breaching" is really cool, but very "square-ish". The multiplayer though has it's moments, and at some points it's jawdroppingly fun.
  6. Nov 6, 2012
    7
    Medal of Honor: Warfighter, was a mixbag of feelings. In one hand it is a great looking game with a much improved gameplay from his last game from 2010. On the other, the use of Frostbite 2, did feel kind of odd. The not so good bugs that appear in game, almost ruined my experience, but overall it was a great game... http://www.moodgamer.net/2012/11/analise-medal-of-honor-warfighter.html
  7. Oct 29, 2012
    6
    This game tries to land somewhere in the middle of BF3 and Modern Warfare3 and in my opinion succeeds at doing that and then does nothing more. Take the small, close quarters non sniper maps of COD as well as the kill streak perks and mix that with the squad based elements of battlefield and add the game modes of both and you have MOH's multiplayer in a nut shell. The problem is thatThis game tries to land somewhere in the middle of BF3 and Modern Warfare3 and in my opinion succeeds at doing that and then does nothing more. Take the small, close quarters non sniper maps of COD as well as the kill streak perks and mix that with the squad based elements of battlefield and add the game modes of both and you have MOH's multiplayer in a nut shell. The problem is that although it uses the frostbite 2 engine the graphics are no where near as good as Battlefield 3 and although the maps are small the run and gun fun factor experienced in COD is not found in this game. I think the maps are boring and uninspired. The sound is not great. Overall I was disappointed because I expected the game to be a lot better than the 2010 MOH and it just is not. On top of that add in a short boring linear scripted campaign and this game just falls short of fun. And the replay value is extremely low. I would say keep playing BF3 and then give Black Ops 2 a try. Or wait another year for BF4 if you are anti COD. But this years MOH is skip-able. This is just another average shooter in a flooded market. Expand
  8. Nov 17, 2012
    7
    Medal of honor warfighter is a good game. The games graphics are insane. The sound design is way better than battlefield 3. The story is a bit of a dissapointment, but the campaign features plenty of variety. Driving sequences, door breaches, boat segments, chases, and helicopter raids. The game does have a fair number of glitches, but these aren't game wrecking issues by any means. TheMedal of honor warfighter is a good game. The games graphics are insane. The sound design is way better than battlefield 3. The story is a bit of a dissapointment, but the campaign features plenty of variety. Driving sequences, door breaches, boat segments, chases, and helicopter raids. The game does have a fair number of glitches, but these aren't game wrecking issues by any means. The mission structure and level design of the game is overall good. But it's not anything new or orignal. The controls of the game are silky smooth, and should be easy to get used to. The gunplay is rather satisfying in warfighter, and there's lots of guns too. The AI in the game definitely leaves alot to be desired. The game still can be challenging, but the AI doesn't really use good tactics. The game has plenty of content. Six hour campaign with plenty of variety, and a multiplayer mode with five or so team objective based combat. New features like the fireteam system fix many spawn related issues seen in most shooters. There are plenty of classes, guns to unlock by ganing ranks, etc. While Medal of honor Warfighter doesn't do anything new or original, the game is still a good game for those looking for their yearly first person shooter. If it looks fun to you, then I would say give it a shot. Those other reviewers I believe are being way to harsh on this game. Expand
  9. Nov 1, 2012
    7
    As an avid gamer and FPS lover, I approached this game with some anticipation. I expected more from the 2nd edition in 2010 as DICE was asked to handle the multiplayer and that was disappointing..so now with the 2012 version having heard that a few DICE developers had crossed over to Danger close I was expecting a much more BF3 stance to the game...slight bigger maps..as its not a BF gameAs an avid gamer and FPS lover, I approached this game with some anticipation. I expected more from the 2nd edition in 2010 as DICE was asked to handle the multiplayer and that was disappointing..so now with the 2012 version having heard that a few DICE developers had crossed over to Danger close I was expecting a much more BF3 stance to the game...slight bigger maps..as its not a BF game I wasnt expecting awesome vehicles and to be able to pilot anything...but I was expecting more destruction...the same opening VOIP issues..when you build a "team" FPS game..you need to be able to communicate. I hate the trash talking COD like lobby and the BF3 easiness of swapping squads, teaming up etc. Overall though I am impressed with the elements of fun yes I said FUN. The ability to work with a fireteam buddy. Great hit detection and pretty well balanced. I score it a 7 due tot he fact that it claims "authenticity" by saying they have real tier 1 input into the game but honestly I dont know any military adviser whom would say that Sweden and Norway are in the TOP tier 1 nations listing...France, Israel, South Africa (in terms of Africa) would be much more global and real. Expand
  10. Nov 11, 2012
    7
    The first 30 minutes of gameplay, I thought that this game was sarcastic. Beautiful graphics with a powerfull graphic enginee, strong noise from the guns and the weapons... But the entertainment wasn´t there. This was changing during the campaing mode. It goes from worst to best, and the final result is a good game. Nothing more, just a good game with a good history, with a goodThe first 30 minutes of gameplay, I thought that this game was sarcastic. Beautiful graphics with a powerfull graphic enginee, strong noise from the guns and the weapons... But the entertainment wasn´t there. This was changing during the campaing mode. It goes from worst to best, and the final result is a good game. Nothing more, just a good game with a good history, with a good multiplayer and with a good style. This game doesn´t try to be like a Call of Duty nor Battlefield. This game tries to be original, and most part of the people that mark a negative mark to this game thinks that it´s a call of duty. And it isn´t. This game is a Medal of Honor. Expand
  11. Nov 22, 2012
    7
    I thought the game was pretty cool. The singleplayer was playing through the first time. Once the first impact wears off and you play it again the game mechanics which are not great will be more clear and ruin the immersion. But overall singleplayer was fun, much more real feeling then COD Black Ops 2.

    Multiplayer - why do I get the feeling im playing a walking billboard. 1. It felt
    I thought the game was pretty cool. The singleplayer was playing through the first time. Once the first impact wears off and you play it again the game mechanics which are not great will be more clear and ruin the immersion. But overall singleplayer was fun, much more real feeling then COD Black Ops 2.

    Multiplayer - why do I get the feeling im playing a walking billboard. 1. It felt that the only reason some of the guns and equipment was in the game cause it was sponsored by the manufacturers. I can see where they wanted to go with it but what they ended with is very average.
    2. Too Hard to kill people - decrease health
    3. Map felt boring, they dont have to be on the locations in the game, do some fun maps that have nothing to do with the campaign. 4. Menu system - massive fail, to the point it actually impedes the enjoyment of mulitplayer
    5. dont be lazy and have 5 character skins. More diversity in each nation. (weapons and look)
    6. 3x magnifier - fail

    The game is alright, nothing compared to the hype it got. Some cool moments but if cod and battlefields singlepayer were total garbage then I wouldnt give moh no more than one play through. It felt like they just didnt get there with medal of honor.
    Expand
  12. Nov 11, 2012
    5
    Let's see. MoH Warfighter has nice graphics... That's it. The campaign it's generic shooting at its finest. No tactic, nothing. It reminds me a lot of an other piece of crap named Modern Warfare 3. The multiplayer it;s buggy at best and most of the people playing have no skill! Really. I felt like I was playing MW3 multiplayer. The multiplayer maps are horrid at best. Even MW3 had betterLet's see. MoH Warfighter has nice graphics... That's it. The campaign it's generic shooting at its finest. No tactic, nothing. It reminds me a lot of an other piece of crap named Modern Warfare 3. The multiplayer it;s buggy at best and most of the people playing have no skill! Really. I felt like I was playing MW3 multiplayer. The multiplayer maps are horrid at best. Even MW3 had better multiplayer maps and I think it's same to assume that Black Ops 2 will also have better multiplayer maps. Describing in a Warfighter in a nutshell. Thumbed down MW3, Expand
  13. Feb 19, 2013
    5
    Has there ever been a title more redundant than "Medal of Honor: Warfighter"? I would be the first to say no. Surprisingly, "warfighter" is an actual term which pertains to any person responsible for making decisions which results in the use of military force. Could've fooled me. Anywho, MOH: Warfighter is a direct sequel to the 2010 reboot of the once-popular series. With that release,Has there ever been a title more redundant than "Medal of Honor: Warfighter"? I would be the first to say no. Surprisingly, "warfighter" is an actual term which pertains to any person responsible for making decisions which results in the use of military force. Could've fooled me. Anywho, MOH: Warfighter is a direct sequel to the 2010 reboot of the once-popular series. With that release, developers Danger Close and DICE (of "Battlefield" fame) had summoned a predictable first-person shooter in the vein of "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare". Unfortuantely, it had none of the panache of Infinity Ward's superior product. But the game was a surprise hit and EA Games began to develop a sequel. The result is this by-the-numbers shooter which still plays much like "Call of Duty". Thankfully, it is a better effort than the 2010 game. Danger Close developed both the campaign and multiplayer online modes for "Warfighter", and while the game still isn't great, it's a decent one.

    If you played the first game, than you'll certainly notice the increase in quality. While the campaign plays much like any other COD game, it's got two great vehicle segments. And the enemy A.I. isn't as dumb as it was in the 2010 offering. The gimmick of breaching doors is overused and pointless and the cinematic segments may be yawn-inducing for some. But I found the campaign to be mildly entertaining. It's only six hours long and a second playthrough isn't justified, but it's fun (for the most part) and tells a decent story. Multiplayer has also been improved. It's been extensively expanded upon which is good since the 2010 title included only a bare-bones version of "Battlefield". The online game still feels more like BF than COD minus the vehicles and good graphics, but fans of the genre could do worse. There are six modes and six differerent character classes which help bring some nice variety to the matches. Also, the gun customization options are fun to play with. However, the sound effects of the weapons are much more dynamic in DICE's games and the lack of innovation will disappoint some. Overall, this title is worth about half of its initial price (maybe even a little less). EA Games recently cancelled the series which maybe a good thing. But if you're bored of "Black Ops II" and can't wait until "Battlefield 4" shows up, than "Warfighter" is a decent way to kill a few hours.
    Expand
  14. Dec 8, 2012
    5
    Medal of Honor Warfighter multiplayer is a mixed bag for me i went in with high expectations but what i got was a very buggy mess. When the game works it can be an enjoyable experience for shure i've had fun with the game when it does work but a good %85-%95 of the time it's broken and glitch filled. The menu system is a mess! none of the menus are simple to navigate and they use multipleMedal of Honor Warfighter multiplayer is a mixed bag for me i went in with high expectations but what i got was a very buggy mess. When the game works it can be an enjoyable experience for shure i've had fun with the game when it does work but a good %85-%95 of the time it's broken and glitch filled. The menu system is a mess! none of the menus are simple to navigate and they use multiple buttons why? Why not use you basic forward and back designs for menus why does it have to be a layered mess? Anyway the weapon selection is decent but not recognizable unless you know your guns. While the ability to choose your faction is a nice feature it's limited to only one class at a time until you unlock the faction to be use with other classes.Overall it's not a terrible game but it's not great either it defiantly needs some fixes and better textures but again when it works it's not bad. Expand
  15. May 28, 2013
    6
    EA couldv'e done better with this part of the classic franchise. The graphics do look great for MoH Warfighter, but the story and A.I. in this game is awful. The enemy just spawn wherever you are and kill you almost instantly. MP's still fun, but some of the new additions to the MP just don't work. I'd prefer playing MoH (2010) over this, even if this game runs on Frostbite 2, which is aEA couldv'e done better with this part of the classic franchise. The graphics do look great for MoH Warfighter, but the story and A.I. in this game is awful. The enemy just spawn wherever you are and kill you almost instantly. MP's still fun, but some of the new additions to the MP just don't work. I'd prefer playing MoH (2010) over this, even if this game runs on Frostbite 2, which is a shame since it looked very good in the trailers. Expand
  16. Sep 27, 2013
    7
    Although this game has framerate problems, the graphics are really good. The story mode is also good and is quite realistic. The multiplayer is empty, no one plays that often. The gameplay feels fast and fluid and work quite well. Overall this is an underrated game and deserves more attention.
  17. Jun 11, 2014
    6
    Warfighter is literally a 50/50. Unlike other games, all you get is a campaign and multiplayer mode, and the campaign in Warfighter makes the one in the first game look even better than it did. It was BORING! Even worse, on my first playthrough, the gameplay was very glitchy. One word: Snipers.
    Multiplayer was a lot better. Finally, a perfect blend between the slow, teamwork-based
    Warfighter is literally a 50/50. Unlike other games, all you get is a campaign and multiplayer mode, and the campaign in Warfighter makes the one in the first game look even better than it did. It was BORING! Even worse, on my first playthrough, the gameplay was very glitchy. One word: Snipers.
    Multiplayer was a lot better. Finally, a perfect blend between the slow, teamwork-based gameplay of Battlefield, and the solo killstreak gameplay Call of Duty is known for.
    But having good multiplayer does not justify the absolute bullcrap found in the rest of this game, or any other AAA shooter.
    Expand
  18. Oct 26, 2012
    0
    I honestly just can't be bothered with another mission after a couple hrs, and if there is something worthy of stimulation burried in this heap, I'll probably never see it. This should've been an improvement over the last one, and it seems as though EA and Danger Close think too highly of there partnership. I simply can't imagine anyone who's been playing the likes of cod or bf would careI honestly just can't be bothered with another mission after a couple hrs, and if there is something worthy of stimulation burried in this heap, I'll probably never see it. This should've been an improvement over the last one, and it seems as though EA and Danger Close think too highly of there partnership. I simply can't imagine anyone who's been playing the likes of cod or bf would care for its online offerings let alone the drag that is the campaign. Collapse
Metascore
55

Mixed or average reviews - based on 22 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 22
  2. Negative: 3 out of 22
  1. Dec 19, 2012
    30
    Where COD maintains a smooth 60fps, Warfighter gets a nosebleed trying to put out 30fps. Modern Warfare boasts near-instant restarts after death; here, lengthy loading times merely add to the frustration.
  2. Dec 14, 2012
    60
    As a complete package, Medal of Honor: Warfighter is disappointing when you consider the amount of hype surrounding it.
  3. Every once in a while Danger Close breaks the endless mould of duck & cover gameplay by letting you mark a building for an air strike, chase down an informant or provide sniper support. But even these sequences repeat themselves multiple times throughout the game. [December 2012, p.68]