User Score
5.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 211 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 78 out of 211

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 its nothing you will brag to your friends about. RIP MoH Expand
  2. Oct 25, 2012
    0
    This is the worst multi-player game I have ever played. I said after the first one they wouldn't get me again but I just wanted something different then COD. The interface sucks it spawned me out of the map a couple of times and the gun attachments WTF?. If anybody says this game is any good either works for EA or just plain old hates COD. I don't really prefer COD but after this POS game it's all I have left in the shooter genre. Expand
  3. 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
  4. Oct 23, 2012
    8
    I haven't touched the story mode yet, but i will say i am enjoying the online quite a bit. The maps are nice and varied and the classes feel good to play. Played about 6 hours so far and only had one bug of falling through the screen. The graphics are noticeably lower quality then say mw3, but i'll take lower quality graphics and higher quality game play any day. I just have my usual gripe that i do with most games of what appears to be inconsistent damage from different guns. Namely dump 30 shells into someone as they turn around and kill you with 2 shots from the same gun. Neither of which being head shots. Other then that i am happy with this game as long as the online community doesn't jump ship on it like in ghost recon future soldier which i also was enjoying online. Expand
  5. Oct 29, 2012
    10
    Follow this link for a well written article. Most of the press is owned by Doritos, Mountain Dew, or some sponser. Don't be a lemming. Reading is fundamental. http://pcgmedia.com/what-are-journalists-missing-when-it-comes-to-medal-of-honor-warfighter/
  6. Oct 26, 2012
    9
    This review is for multiplayer only because I feel like that's all any one cares about anymore. This simple and logical fact that people only care about MP can be seen as proof in the amount of work that went into it to make it distinct, fun, and it does have some original ideas. I love love love the buddy system because everyone in the Army knows you don't go anywhere or do anything without your "Battle Buddy" from basic training all the way to the sandbox. The game has a awesome amount of upgrades and the menus can be confusing at first but after you spend some time in there you will figure it out I promise! Also, the weapons feel so heavy and brutal and very responsive. I have really enjoyed the MP very much and I truly believe that the harsh reviews are unfair and in my experience I haven't had any bugs or glitches and I have been playing for two days now and love it. It is indeed a blend of COD and B3 with its own identity mixed in and to tell you the truth I don't understand why that's a bad thing!?!? It is another modern shooter and yes it is similar to other genre shooters but the gameplay alone and the responsiveness of the weapons alone make this game worth your time. I paid $60 for it and I don't regret it at all, and I'm not one of these trolls that have to justify my spending of $60 because I have a decent job and the money isn't the issue and I don't think we are being fair to MOH when we say it's a cookie cutter FPS because they all are nowadays. I feel what makes this game stand on its own foundation (besides the gorgeous graphics and fun MP and sweet sound effects) is that it has extremely well polished maneuverability in the MP and the buddy system makes it so much fun to work as a team similar to B3 but without the tanks, choppers and jets. It has that "close up" feel like COD but has the team based squad play like B3 which prevents camping and line wolfs and THAT ALONE makes it worth every penny of the $60. At least rent it and try out the FREE 2 day trial online (thanks very much danger close that was very nice of you and I hope more developers use this tactic to get people hooked in a game) because with the free two day trial you can decide if it is for you or not and I believ you will fall in love with it like I have. And yes, once again, it is a blend of CoD and B3 but how is that negative I ask you? Enjoy the game and don't base your decision on some mean spirited and unprofessional reviews. I give it a 8/10 for the MP alone and I will update this review afte I complete the single player which I hope is as good as the last one! Trust me....just try out the free 2 day trial and at least rent it. You have nothing to lose and an awesome MP game to gain! Expand
  7. Oct 24, 2012
    3
    Ok right from the start i will tell you, i am not a big fan of multiplayer , the single player experience is the thing that i like most in a game. That is why i hate this game, my god only 6 hours campaign are you kidding me EA, you could put a little more effort! The graphics are beautiful, but camon everything else is the same thing that you already saw in a FPS shooter nowadays. Extreme linearity, hand holding game (telling you what to do, who to kill, where to go), regenerating health i dont feel like a soldier in this game i fell like a super hero or the terminator. Buy this game if you only want the same thing from a fps with good graphics. Expand
  8. Oct 25, 2012
    10
    I really don't see why there seems to be quite a bit of hate for this game. I think it is an amazing FFS. I think that the campaign is somewhat short, but I really enjoyed it. There is a little bit of humor is some parts too. I also really enjoyed the music. The gameplay is like any other shooter out there. I haven't played much multiplayer, but I still really like it. I really love all of the customization options, especially the gun camos/ paint jobs! The best edition to multiplayer is the Fireteam Buddy System where when you start a match, you are randomly assigned a buddy (unless you are in a party) and what you can do with that buddy is heal/resupply each other, spawn on him, and get points from him during battle. The Frostbite 2 does a great job with this game, but it would have been nice to see more destruction. It doesn't bother me too much though because this is a more open, close quarters game compared to Battlefield 3. For all of the Call of Duty fanboys out there that say that every other FFS sucks and that other developers copy it, you can't say that about the Medal of Honor series. CoD came out in '03 while MoH came out in '99. Expand
  9. Oct 26, 2012
    10
    Medal of Honor: Warfighter is a perfect example of why you cannot depend on critic reviews to decide whether you should get a certain game or not. All of the negative reviews MoH: Warfighter are getting is complete **** It is not trying to be like Battlefield 3. It is not trying to be like COD. It is not generic. It is trying to be a FPS game of it's own. And it does a good job at it. The only similarities the game has with Battlefield 3 and COD is that the animations are similar to Battlefield 3 and the map designs are like COD. Other than that, it is not trying to copy them at all. MoH: Warfighter is a great game and I'd say the skill level in this game is even higher than Battlefield 3. Almost as hardcore as Counterstrike. I suggest anyone looking for a different type of shooter with a greater challenge to pick this game up. MoH: Warfighter gets a 9.5/10 from me Expand
  10. Oct 24, 2012
    10
    Awesome graphics, gameplay is one of the best this year in those war games, multi-player is just perfect too, don't miss that game, it's a good investment compare to the deception of MW3. the frostbite 2 engine is great , a must try for any gamer out there !!!
  11. Oct 25, 2012
    1
    A loathsome and bitter disappointment. I don't typically pre-order and I don't typically buy new games but I so loved the previous MOH that I was willing to risk my precious duckets on the possibility of an incredible gaming experience. Two words: NEVER. AGAIN. The graphics were average, the gameplay was wobbly unfocused and cumbersome (the breach choices? Really?) and the story was as riveting as a room temperature cup of chamomile tea. Oh, and Danger Close... You kick a door, you shoulder a door, you ram a door, hell, you even blow a door off it's hinges, but I have NEVER, in 20 years in the field, used an effing tomahawk to do a fast breach. Seriously, it will not work. Whoever did your technical advising on that part of it, get your money back.

    As far as sniping, well, real sniping is hard, video game sniping shouldn't be. A gamer shouldn't have to have a BDC calculation sheet to play the game. This thing is NOT worth the price of admission, and it's going the hell back to Game Stop tomorrow morning.
    Expand
  12. Oct 25, 2012
    9
    I'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
  13. Oct 24, 2012
    8
    I gave MOH: Warfighter an '8' based on IGN's Sliding Scale, whereas a 7 is "Good", 8 is "Great", 9 is "Amazing" and a 10 is a "Masterpiece. Thus far throughout my 10-12 hours of game play, I can say that, in my opinion, this is a "Great" Game. I have enjoyed it more than COD: Black Ops/COD: MW3 and Battlefield 3 and believe the multiplayer has the potential to be a very, very, very memorable experience (should, as some others have said, the glitches get worked out). The game is "fast", and THE most realistic FPS I have ever played. You won't get very far in trying to go out there on the field of battle and be a "One Man Gang", trust me; team work is the key to the game and what sets it apart from any other multiplayer I have ever played. Self admitting, I would describe myself as a "selfish" player, especially when teamed up with other selfish players or newbs who don't know what they're doing. In this game, you're gonna have to depend on the the newb, whether you like it or not. I read a few previews that said so much, that MOH: Warfighter was extremely team-oriented and thought, "We'll see about that..." but it really is and that is what gives it a refreshing, realistic, and enjoyable component, which I haven't experienced in recent years re: FPS. The single-player campaign is not very long (as others have said), however, it is very good. I really do not understand many of the reviewers here slamming MOH: Warfighter for below average graphics, I am quite impressed with the attention to detail, geographic locales, and realism that was put into making this "Combat"; it is the most militarily centered title, I have ever played (and "No", I'm not just some dude who's just really excited about the game and spouting off like a kid at Christmas). If you want realistic, military combat you really need to give his game serious consideration. The weapon proficiencies are fantastic, the story-line is 'clean', and although I am extremely interested to see what EA does with the multiplayer moving forward, the single player campaign mode is not 'easy', possesses sweeping graphics (or might I say, believable graphics) and is smooth. I would not rush out and get this if you strictly into story lines eg: the Uncharted, Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls series' (all fantastic in their own right) and a unforgettable Single Player Campaign, again, it is short, but fun (and, again, "fresh").

    What sets this one apart, as I have probably repeated 9-10 times, is the team work that you will either adjust to and really enjoy or remain stuck in that 'shoot-out' mode, where one player can take over a multiplayer scenario and run the table. Taking the "I" attitude, out of Medal of Honor: Warfighter is what EA did "right". And they did it very well. I am confident that if you are the type of player of does not easily (or is not willing to) adjust to team work, save yourself the misery, it's not gonna be for you and with BLOPS II and BF4 on the horizon, save your money. If, however, you want something fresh and believe in a 'pure' FPS with real world Combat, this may be what you have been looking for. I believe, that in the end, when the dust settles, this will indeed be considered a "Great" game for those can appreciate it for what it is. In closing, I will steal a line from (what I consider to be) "the" Reality Show that put Reality TV on the map, MTV's "The Real World":

    "This is the true story... of seven strangers... picked to live in a house...work together and have their lives taped... to find out what happens... when people stop being polite... and start getting real...The Real World." EA has succeeded in developing a "real" gem here and I hope you guys enjoy it as much as I have, be a Warfighter!
    Expand
  14. Oct 26, 2012
    8
    Multiplayer is were this game is great. There are some issues that hopefully will be fixed in a future patch (mics not working, gun dmg, spawning outside map). The campaign isn't that great, I liked the 1st MOH campaign much more. So if you liked Battlefield Bad company 2 and Battlefield 3, You'll like MOH Warfighter as well. Maps are not as big, but the buddy system and spawn loc choice is great. Make sure you change the controller settings to what you like; I chose BF3 settings, it starts off with COD controls. It takes a few days to get accustomed too, so give it a try for a week before judging so fast. Expand
  15. Oct 25, 2012
    10
    no way this is bad like everyone saying, best graphics , great cover system, great audio, fantastic driving parts,8 out of ten but because of 2 an 3's i give it a 10, black ops 2 better have better graphics and they need 2 add a cover system or i expect black ops 2 to get some 1's, or at least it should, warfighter is better than bf3 for me, more accurate shooting
  16. Oct 25, 2012
    8
    The reviews we are seeing are from people who have barely played the multiplayer. I wonder how they would score halo4 or gears 3 if it shipped with no multiplayer. If you want a proper review wait till someone has played the full game for atleast a week.
  17. 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.
  18. Oct 28, 2012
    8
    Medal of Honor Warfighter is a decent game. Because the single player is short, or there are a few bugs (Honestly, I have only encountered 1 or 2 bugs during the campaign) it doesn't mean it's a bad game. Just like every previous Medal of Honor, the campaign story is awesome again, it shows that the military life can be hard and that it can't be underrated, unlike other FPS's where it's more like soldiers are superhero's who do a halo jump every day and sweep whole towns of hostiles with only 2 or 3 men. The graphics are good compared to COD, but not as good as BF3 or Crysis (However the cutscenes are really well made). The sounds are good and Warfighter has a very good soundtrack. About the MP: Definitely bigger than MoH 2010. More maps, more gamemodes, more weapons, more classes and now you can even choose the nationality of your soldier. The weapon customizing is awesome, including custom optics, barrels, even paint jobs and magazine styles. I think everyone expects a BF3 or a COD copy, but Danger Close is creating a new kind of FPS MP and I like it! Expand
  19. Oct 27, 2012
    4
    I tried to like this and look past the negative reviews, but I have to be honest: this game is not worth the price of admission. I remember how terribly disappointed I was when I started playing the first reboot (Medal of Honor, 2010); however, I kept going and I had a decent enough time that I didn't feel genuinely ripped off - much like how I'm feeling right now. I have bought 20+ EA games in my life and I usually disregard the naysayers that suggest that the company gouges its supporters. This time, I have never felt it so evident that a product was rushed to take the money of those impatiently waiting for the new Halo or COD or, in my case, Assassin's Creed. Thank goodness EB Games offers the full price of the game back as a trade-in credit, minus a dollar for every day after the release date. Wait until this game is $20 if you HAVE to try it. Cheers. Expand
  20. Oct 29, 2012
    0
    I cannot comprehend how anyone can can give this game any positive review whatsoever. The only thing I can figure out is they must not have ever played any other FPS games in their lives. It is totally unplayable online and the single player...well. In my opinion the last decent FPS EA did was BF Bad Company 2. I will stick to COD even though it has become a very repetitive series. Side note, I was never a fan of COD, but the garbage in BF3 and MOH last year have me trapped in the last decent FPS game. Expand
  21. Nov 1, 2012
    4
    Medal of Honor: Warfighter has amazing visuals, and as usual, a fun multiplayer but when you nail it down to the game itself, it isn't worth your time or money. The game is like a crappy version of Battlefield 3 with a load of bugs and a terrible campaign. The story is forgettable and is not well written at all. I'd actually recommend this to any massive EA fan because of the graphics and it's not a terrible game, but casual gamers stay away. Expand
  22. Oct 26, 2012
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It's a pretty entertaining game for FPS. It has moments of excitement. The graphic is good. The story line is "real event inspired" as claimed. The usual draw back is the individual campaign playtime is a bit short. I also experience a little bit of technical glitch with frame judder. Over all it is a good enough junkie-fix for in between COD releases. I have not started on the online multi-player (which i don't normally spend much time on).
    Frankly, i think the poor reviews given by critics on MOHWF are a bit harsh & lopped sided. I don't know if i can depend on professional reviews for my purchasing decisions anymore. For instance, I bought Borderland 2 based on critics' high marks review, but i found the game to be slow moving, frustrating frequent KIA, poor game-save, low excitement and low entertainment value.
    Expand
  23. 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 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
  24. Oct 27, 2012
    1
    This game has more bugs than a Costa Rican Rain Forest!!!
    I sold it today for a $40 gift card @ Best Buy.
    EA really blew it on this one.
    Their last PS3 MOH game was decent so not sure WTF happened?
  25. Oct 28, 2012
    3
    As an avid gamer of the original 'Medal of Honor' 2010 title, I awaited the 'Warfighter' sequel excitedly. After several hours of online gameplay with 'Warfighter', I am left feeling incredibly disappointed, unfulfilled and saddened. The elements that made the orignal game so addicitve to play online have been completely omitted; the simplicity, the graphics, the scorechain accumulation tension - all lost in 'Warfighter'. Many words have been spoken by the developers on how they attempt to differentiate themselves from the other FPS in the genre by adding a strong element of 'authenticity' to their titles. Yes, this was achieved in 2010 Medal of Honor - however clearly lost in the ridiculous and confusing 'Warfighter' - This game makes no effort to immerse the gamer into a gritty, tough warzone environment, unlike the first title; where the audio and visual elements were far superior to it's sequel.

    Every weapon somehow sounds suppressed, the graphics are shockingly bad and unclear, the gameplay has no 'tension' or authenticity. Warfighter is simply the unwanted lovechild of the CoD series mated with Battlefield 3! I sincerely hope this is not the template for the next generation of FPS.

    In Medal of Honor (2010) myself and my online friends had clocked up thousands of online hours gameplay. We were inside the top 250 players globally on the PS3. This is not a boast, simply a statement to hopefully add weight to my argument when we all generally believe this sequel is such a shameful letdown to the Medal series, and feels like it has 'sold out' to the CoD franchise. The only interesting feature of the game is how many customisations can be made with weapons, kit, soldiers and skins etc. However, none of this seems appropriate or necessary, when the game creates no interest for the gamer in the first instance.

    Would the makers of 'Warfighter' please please realise they have made an epic mistake with this game? Take the strong elements from the 2010 game, and go back to the drawing board, because this latest offering deserves not the title of MOH. Disappointment reigns.
    Expand
  26. Oct 29, 2012
    9
    MOH:W is a great game. It's single player leaves much to be desired but is made up by the great multiplayer experience. It tries to land in between CoD and BF3 and does so perfectly. It uses the pace of BF with the speed of CoD. It brings new elements like immense weapon customization and classes which many people seem to overlook because of the bugs. What people don't understand though is that reviews are not a place to **** about your crappy experience with glitches but a place to review the PERMANENT elements of the game, bugs and glitches are merely temporary problems which will be patched. Expand
  27. Oct 30, 2012
    9
    I really do not understand all the bashing of this game by both the users or the critics. I only feel compelled to write this review because I feel the game is being grossly misrepresented as I have been having more fun than I ever had since BF3 and even prefer it to BLOPS. For the record I am a long time fan of both this series and COD and played all CODS (with the exception of MW3) dating back to when COD still was actually about real wars. I played the last MOH but forgot all about it when BLOPS was released.

    Is this game perfect? No. However it differentiates itself from the competition and executes far more right than it does wrong. This game appeals to the type of FPS fan that prefers to get their kills themselves rather than having a bot do it for them. If you are playing this to see something never before seen in gaming then you will be disappointed because that is not its intent. If having tons of real world customizable weapons, excellent character animations and visceral fire fights sounds appealing then pick this up. Two issues people seem most legitimately upset about are the menus and glitches. There are glitches but I cannot recall one of these games that did not have glitches upon release and I have already seen most issues that existed day one resolved. The menus are not broken., just different. I did not like them at first but once acclimated they were fine and since there is so much more you can do in the way of customization their manifold nature is understandable.

    MOH appeals to certain sensibilities that , according to the other reviews, are not valued by most. More Michael Mann than Jerry Bruckheimer, this game is not for everyone but if it fits your palette you are in for a deliciously satisfying meal.
    Collapse
  28. 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 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
  29. Nov 11, 2012
    4
    I was surprised at the user reviews on the site--this is one of the times the paid critics got the game scores just about dead on. This outing falls somewhere between mediocre and outright lousy.
    The firefights are repetitive and boring; the whole game felt like running one of the shooting galleries in the MW series over and over for that 3rd star. And the character models were awful--was
    this really the Frostbite engine from BF3? The emotional family elements they tried to graft on to the story might have worked better if the main character's wife and daughter hadn't looked like hideous mutant people. There are hundreds of other modern military shooters out there--I recommend you play ANY other one of them. Expand
  30. Dec 28, 2012
    10
    Greatest game in the world. It's better than Battlefield 3, Call of Duty, Crysis, Far Cry 3, Borderlands 2, Dishonored, BioShock, Fallout, Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six and Skyrim COMBINED!
  31. Jan 12, 2013
    10
    I do not get all these negative reviews. single player is ok BUT the multiplayer is just awesoooooooome. Great, great improvement over MOH from a year ago. excellent game. tons of fun. new modes are great. highly recommended.
  32. Oct 29, 2012
    10
    Medal of Honor: Warfighter. This is the game that you do not expect. All criticize him, then talk about it at the end of the matter is the pure and true example of a war game. A solid background fps at war, someone thinks like many others, but in fact different.
    Uses the same graphics engine of Battlefield Frosbite the 2.0 and although it has some bugs and a drop in frame rate is worthy
    of his name and it deserves a 8.8. S'inzia playing with a sequence different from the other and finally the usual shooter that takes you to the end of the story.
    A history of war but with flashbacks azzecati, which takes you to finish the story mode in single players in its 5-6 max 7/8 hours depending on the pace that you play and at what level of difficulty.
    The story plays a key role, for once it departs from those Hollywood shooter at times we are accustomed to see and play, which transmits that wonderful feeling you will be playing live this story.
    Yes, because not only tells the story killings, rebellion and the usual war between factions but also that the protagonist has his life, just like us, just like a real soldier, and are placed in the middle of the good will of his wife and little daughter ...
    These are that are srorie to tell and chissè care if some bugs from time to time ruin things up a bit, the story you're passionate about and you follow it to the eilogo beautiful or sad it is. Rating 9.5.
    Then there's the online multiplayer in the same house battlefiel, who has transformed the world and the way we see a shooter, everything works perfectly: the castomizzazione weapons to a group of soldiers through different levels in different sections game. Rating 9.5
    Finally, the gameplay ... maybe needs some tweaking on arms and on the handling of the media but these new ideas enter the races of the house criterion make it more beautiful and full of suspense the challenge ...
    Some define this game devoid of personality and soul ... perhaps those who do not play and do not try and soulless ...
    This game deserves attention and I will award because perhaps we are faced with a very good game, not a masterpiece, but a great game to try and have absolutely.
    Rating 9.4!
    Expand
  33. Oct 29, 2012
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I have finished the story mode and spent a considerable amount of time in multiplayer, that being said there are a few things that I would like to say. I LOVE the multiplayer and see this being a game I will spend a ton of time in, I love how fast and fluid the multiplayer is and love how each different country plays and feels. The biggest negative I see is the game taking away control while playing the campaign this happens far too frequently, the game is beautiful and the story is decent. The buddy system im multiplayer is absolutely awesome and really encourages teams working together. If you enjoy playing online at least give this game a shot. I don't think you will regret it. Expand
  34. Oct 27, 2012
    2
    Bummed. I feel like the kid that keeps touching the hot stove after he burned his hand the first time. From now on, good luck selling anything w/ the words "Medal Of Honor" on it, it has now become synonymous w/ mediocrity. The game wasn't even "rushed". 2 years?!? 2 years to make this game w/ a well known, often used & very agile engine. & this is what they came up with.... Trading....

    The multiplayer is buggy, sometimes on respawn, you fall through the map which adds a death to your count. Damage is inconsistent @ best. Seems to take me damn near a mag to kill a guy, even when I get the drop on him, while the other guy hits me about 3 times & I'm dead. Other times I hit a guy 2-3 times & he falls dead.. go figure.

    Single player was fun enough, kind of a lotta re do though. Too much time spent on details like the differences of how a GROM operative reloads a weapon vs. how a SEAL might & not enough on the polish of the experience as a whole....
    Expand
  35. Nov 1, 2012
    9
    Medal of Honor is simply put, a great game. A lot of critics truly did not analyze all aspects of the title, but instead rated the title very harshly due to it's minor problems. I will agree that this game definitely feels as though it could've used a couple more hours in the oven, but the core gameplay, customization, sound, and visuals are so fantastic, that the minor issues and problems bear almost no weight. The story is pretty great, the CG cutscenes are beyond beautiful, the guns sound fierce and incredible, and the simple beauty that ensues whenever one of my stray bullets hits a piece of the enemy cover and dust and particles fly everywhere, is beyond incredible. The multiplayer is also a lot of fun! The customization is fantastic, with all of the different accessories that I have the option of adding to my gun, as well as how I can represent the Nation of my choice with my classes is also a welcome addition to the franchise! The support actions are fun to use and help your team. The ability to spawn on your fireteam buddy and even create a platoon of several fireteams is also fantastic. There are so many creative and new aspects of this game that make it a no-brainer buy.

    I do however have to mention the cons, because that is only fair. The worst things that I can honestly think of when I really look into the game are four things. Sometimes there is texture pop-in when spawning, or at the beginning of the map, but when it happens it is quick and it isn't constant. I also noticed that 1 in about 50 matches I spawned in a place that was either behind or below the map. There is also some audio cut-in and out when reloading the weapon sometimes, but again, this is rather infrequent. The final con that I found really to be a problem, was the amount of hours that this game sucked out of my nights, getting lost in the incredible multiplayer! ;)

    In short, I believe that Warfighter is a great game that shooter fans everywhere can really enjoy. There are some minor bugs and glitches, but they are not game-breaking, nor do I think that they wouldn't be able to fix them with a patch or two. PROS:
    - Great Sound and Visuals
    - Incredible Multiplayer Suite that will keep you coming back for more
    - Incredible gun effects, bullet, effects, and overall high quality experience with weapons and reactions to them

    CONS:
    - Minor texture pop-in in MP
    - Minor sound cut-out issues (only noticed in MP)
    Expand
  36. Nov 4, 2012
    3
    The multiplayer bugs that cripples this game have not been fixed. The main, and huge, problem is still VOIP (the voice chat). It simply doesn't work. Here's a basic tip for you, EA and Danger Close; When you make a multiplayer game, make sure that the players can play with eachother. I wish that VOIP was the only problem but there are scores of other bugs that needle at your gaming experience, fireteams splitting up, game freezing, servers crashing, tons of graphic bugs and so on but the lack of a working VOIP is what kills it. Expand
  37. Oct 26, 2012
    3
    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 care for its online offerings let alone the drag that is the campaign. Expand
  38. Oct 28, 2012
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Having played the last edtion for quite some time, i found this new installment so bad, graphics on multi player are child like at the best, the fluidity from the last game has gone, so inconsistent are the guns on the new one i am sick off using a full clip only to be kill by a hand pistol, to be honest the game is copying COD, B3, instead of staying true to the original game which developers had promise all they have done is copy job. Please if do read this don't waste your money on this game it will have no longevity to it, and i am saying this as a real fan from the last game which was considered a gamers game, sometimes to much choice can ruin a game which has also happened to this new installment so if you like a lot of options stick with COD, and talking to experts, spec op's etc, to find out the reality of war sounds good but i want to play a game which hasn't certain boundaries to it so if i want real life i would join the army, so sometimes the imagination of a programmer is far better to come up with a great game than trying to be true to real life. (the idea of computer games is to take you away from the mundane hoy p'loy of life). All i can hope Bio Shock 3 is as good as the last two, Expand
  39. Oct 31, 2012
    2
    What a disapointment, their are so much better games out there,i.e. Dishonored, Kill Zone,Ghostrecon, and so on. Why programers want to make game that are not fun, too hard even on easy I do not get or want, how about a chllange But FUN???! dON T WASTE YOUR MONEY
  40. Oct 31, 2012
    8
    Great sound, the guns are snappy and accurate, not suitable for COD teenage fanboys as the multiplayer requires actual skills instead of relying on "cheater buffs".
    This is a game for serious online warriors, the nice thing about the repainted COD black ops coming out is all the little FPS sheep will go over there and leave the real players to enjoy this fantastic game.
  41. Nov 6, 2012
    4
    Mediocre game with just enough 'shooting and explosions' to make it tolerable for one play-through. I really like the first MOH reboot but this one had a story arc that absolutely went nowhere. Unnecessary confusing without any emotional payoff (you're pretty much placed in one scenario after another to shoot a multitude of baddies - rinse and repeat). Plus, what's up with all the door breaching??? I've never in breached that many doors in any FPS! The developers literally made it a bullet point feature in the game.

    There were some very off putting technical issues with the game including not being able to advance in the single player campaign without triggering the proper sequence of events. The AI for enemies and allies both were broken (i.e. just stood there doing nothing while the target was 2 feet away; not moving up, clipping into walls, getting lost from traveling from one set piece to another, etc). Multi-player was a mess with hard to understand UI and ranking system. Map layout is very confining that funneled players into tight corridor zones where people would just camp. Hit detection is also suspect and uneven (sometimes takes 2 shots to take a guy out - sometimes a full clip wouldn't do it). Do yourself a favor and rent it first before putting money in to buy this. I had higher expectations for this game and it let me down big time. From all the competition of modern military FPS's on the market today (BF3, CODs, Bad Company, etc), you would think the devs would put more time to really make this shine from the rest. Alas, we get a product destined for the bargain bin in about 2 months.
    Expand
  42. Jan 2, 2013
    8
    After reading and watching the reviews about this game I was skeptical at first and finally decided to jump in, and I'm glad I did so. This game is far from perfect, but is fun to play and I don't have to put up with the lag compensation or the Buffer Bloat BS (because I guess playing this game makes my router Buffer Bloat free for some magical reason) The menus are awful, but it is just a matter of getting use to them, the graphics have some problems loading from time to time, and there are no major destruction capabilities like in BF3, but the MP is just amazing, is lag free and I have to mention that my connection isn't that great at all. Most of the complaints I see from people frustrated are mainly because they thought this was like playing COD with BF3 graphics which is not like that in anyway, gun and run is possible if you have a competent team watching your back, if not you will die the moment you take down 1 guy, because his partners who are always close will flank you 90% of the time, you have to learn how to play and also how and what to shoot with.
    How to shoot properly here is way different than in any other FPSs around, depending on the gun you are using, you will have to ADS first or just spray and pray. As a word of advice if your "Agility" is higher than your "effective range" then you should play in a CQ scenario, on the other hand, Effective range will require that you ADS first before shooting. Basically "Agility=better hip fire and mobility / Bad Range damage and awful ADS accuracy" "Effective range= Better ADS accuracy and damage over range / Bad Hip Fire and low mobility due to the added weight of the range attachments (long barrels, extended stocks and such)
    So bottom line I love playing this game, if you want to try something different is a good option if you are prepared for the stiff learning curve and suck at your first tries since most of the people who are still playing the game have a great advantage over you at this point.
    Expand
  43. Nov 10, 2012
    0
    crappiest game ever made in the history of the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  44. Jan 24, 2013
    10
    I'm tired of the troll's giving this game 1's and O's, writing reviews filled with hyperbole. If I were to be honest, I should probably give the overall game a 9 simply based on the overly complex multiplayer screens.

    I personally loved the single player campaign. I served in the Marines and appreciate the tone that this team uses in depicting our warfighters. I think a lot of the
    negativity is from people shying away from the reality that there are really rotten scumbags out there who would kill anyone who believes differently than them in a heartbeat.

    The multiplayer part of the game is a bit different than it's predecessor. The maps feel smaller, but once you learn them, they seem to flow pretty well. I like the BF3 / MOH games a bit more than the COD games (which I own), but I understand that there are a TON of FPS games out there and people have different tastes. I get that. I just don't understand the hate that this franchise gets. Play the game. Make up your own mind. I personally liked it.
    Expand
  45. 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
    budget-price). Expand
  46. Feb 24, 2013
    10
    Single player may be a lil bit bad,i can understand if u don't like it.But MP is a beast.The best one i have ever seen.Better than MW3,BF3,Killzone 3,...Awesome game.But if u didn't buy a "Limited Edition",you may have problems because nearly all matches are in Zero Dark Thirty maps.I reccomend the game,but the limited edition.
  47. 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 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
  48. Mar 5, 2014
    3
    Poor Medal of Honor. Once the best name in WW2 FPS games, the series has struggled to find a place with it's new modern setting. I was hoping that this latest attempt to bring the series back would succeed, but all it ended up doing was making me think that this series is better off either going back to WW2 or just dying. This shooter stumbles at just about every turn.

    One good thing I
    can say about this game is that it is both good looking and great sounding. Guns have a nice pop to them and everything looks top-notch. However frame rate issues, screen tearing, and slowdown do rear their ugly heads far too often. The game's story, which is supposedly written by actual military operatives, is nonsensical and fails to achieve the emotional resonance it was going for. These areas aren't that major, but they do bring down the quality of the game.

    The single-player campaign is literally exactly what you would expect from a military shooter, but with noticeable technical issues. The core shooting is nice, and pulling off a well placed head shot is incredibly satisfying, but everything else around the shooting is pretty awful. It's clear that the campaign is trying hard to be like Battlefield and COD, but poor diversions, dull shootouts, technical issues, and an over reliance on breach segments keep this game from being as enjoyable as some of those games have been. Overall the campaign is a tedious wannabe that fails to live up to a lot of the games it is trying so hard to mimic.

    As for the multiplayer it isn't much better. Everything from finding a match to customizing a weapon is buried in cluttered and ugly menus. The matches can be fun at times on a very basic level, but slow respawns, an emphasis on camping, and confusing map layout means you're better off going with one of the many better options out there. There's also a high likelihood of getting spawn-killed and there aren't many people still playing it. It's incredibly skippable.

    In a time where lackluster military FPS games are literally filling up store shelves, "Warfighter" manages to stand out as particularly crappy. It's glitchy, boring, and filled with poor design choices. Literally everything that is done here has been done better elsewhere, which is incredibly disappointing. I was hoping that this series would one day return to relevance, but Warfighter might be the final nail in the coffin. This is a shooter that I don't recommend you spend any time with, because it fails at just about everything it sets out to do and there are MANY better options out there. Warfighter manages to stand out from the crowd, but for all the wrong reasons.
    Expand
  49. Dec 9, 2013
    10
    Obliterates CoD IMO. I played CoD Black Ops before this and I thought this was so much better for single player. Story line was much better and gameplay was also better IMO. I'll seek out the others now. Loved it.
  50. 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
  51. 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 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
  52. Nov 25, 2012
    10
    Wow this game has a low score. I suppose you have to judge it by the entire package and to be perfectly honest, I didn't even play the online portion. I rented it! It's easy for me to give this game a great score since I didn't plunk down 60 bucks for it. I didn't care for the last MOH online game so I doubt I would have felt much different about this one anyway. The single player story though, was the best of the bunch. While too short, I don't see why this just wasn't the story for Battlefield 3 or Battlefield 4. It was authentic from the human dialogue to the weapon dialogue. Everything looked and sounded great which really immersed me, and that is what I'm looking for. It is unfortunate that every shooter that shines(has no crippling glitches) on the PS3 scores lower than certain others, so that is why I'm giving this game a 10. If you bought it and the multiplayer didn't suit you I'd say you would be disappointed at the length of the campaign. The quality of the campaign however, is much better than anything in the Call Of Duty, Modern Warfare or Battlefield franchises. Expand
  53. 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. 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
  54. Nov 12, 2012
    8
    This game is not bad! It is something between Battlefield and Call of Duty. Graphics, sounds and music are good enough. I enjoyed single-player and multi-player is great. It has realistic and entertaining style. Don't believe to reviews in this case :)
  55. Feb 19, 2013
    7
    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
  56. Nov 3, 2012
    9
    Good MP. Cover based not run and gun. A thinking gamers shooter. Great sound. Great coop and customization. I like cod mw, but this is a more realistic tactical mil sim / shooter
  57. Oct 31, 2012
    10
    The game is good overall. The campaign is interesting and fun. The sniping and driving missions are cool. The graphics are great. However, the graphics aren't that good for the multiplayer. The fact that some of the missions occurred in real life makes it better. The multiplayer takes a while to get used to. But once you play for an extended amount of time it grows on you.
  58. 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 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
  59. Nov 1, 2012
    9
    When I purchased this game I was extremely hesitant because of all the reviewers bashing it. I enjoyed the first MOH(2010) so much that I looked past all the negative reviews for this one and went for it. I am so glad that I did. I am thoroughly enjoying my time with the multiplayer especially. The addition, of the fireteams is fantastic. It makes everyone accountable for each other. In no way do I think this game is perfect. I have encountered a couple small bugs. However, I cannot stand the fact that people give this game a 0. If I had listened to them I wouldn't be enjoying this great game. I really could not agree with AustraliaMan more. It's going to make me laugh when I see Black Ops2 get a 10 from all these people. I will no longer be listening to critic and fan reviews because if I did that, the only FPS on my shelf would be the Call of Duty's. Expand
  60. Nov 5, 2012
    8
    INTRODUCTION

    Medal of Honor: Warfighter is a sequel to the 2010 reboot of the Medal of Honor Series. The game features your usual single player campaign along with a generic multiplayer, but that doesn
  61. 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 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
  62. Nov 10, 2012
    8
    The multiplayer is awesome. The multiplayer encourages teamwork and is great to play with a buddy. The weapons are very customizable theirs an ample selection of weapons. The game gets some getting used and is by no means easy to do well. Perhaps, all the negative reviews are because people didn't give MOH a chance and lacked patience.
  63. Nov 12, 2012
    0
    BAD BAD BAD.

    alpha or beta full vesion is not!

    multilayer respawn in thin air falling down thru house., bullets detection awful, support for game equal to none. on the day of relase patch 400mb. and didnt help not one bit. HACKERS on first day! singleplayer first mission you cant die no matter what you do, ripp off game!
  64. Nov 12, 2012
    8
    Hi, im really liking this game but it seriously seriously needs a patch soon to fix all the bugs, also enjoyed single player with a bit of cheap deaths. But i do like the Multiplayer a lot. For me this game just needs a patch. a good patch
  65. Nov 13, 2012
    8
    Based on potential it's at least an 8, so that's what I will give it. It's not the easiest game to learn, weapons require mastery and a solid gameplan is needed. Maps are nice, not too large and graphics look good. Destruction only on micro level, but that's ok with me, beats no destruction at all
    I just hope EA and Danger Close fix the annoying bugs (VOIP) in time .. or my 8 is wasted
  66. 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
    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
  67. Nov 28, 2012
    0
    I bought this game on PSN thanks to a friend who told me it was a great game. What a waste of time and money. The first thing I noticed were the hideous graphics. The campaign was boring and uninspired. The multiplayer was not fun in any way, and there were constant issues with lag and getting stuck on rocks or debris. Terrible. My candidate for worst game of 2012.
  68. Feb 25, 2013
    8
    I consider the panning that MoH:WF got from the critics to be an absolute travesty. This game has extremely well realised gunplay: the weapons feel satisfactorily powerful and sound great. You never have that COD feeling that you can just wade in and soak up the bullets like some new-age superman. Play on hard and the shootouts are tense and engaging, and demand careful use of cover.True, the story is a little convoluted in places, but no more so that other entries in the genre. The visuals in this game are stunning, and whilst it's no BF3, the multiplayer is solid. If you want something that is a bit more edgy and realistic that CoD (which, in my view, is clearly inferior to this game), but not so much as ArmA, then you could do a lot worse than picking up MoH:WF. The real shame is that now the critics have done there dirty work we aren't going to get a sequel. Expand
  69. Dec 4, 2012
    8
    I preordered this game and played campaign first, three times on different difficulties. It was actually better than I expected and multiplayer is between BF3 and CoDs: tactical and fast. Customization in MoH: WR is great because you can change everything in weapons which makes the game a lot more interesting. There is some lag and bugs in the game I trust to Danger Close that they will fix them soon or late. But the game is very good, not the best or awesome, but good. Expand
  70. 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 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
  71. Dec 13, 2012
    9
    Despite the immense criticism Medal of honor wanted to change something in their genre as most always compared to COD, EA wanted to make this game more realistic like the sound of bullets and gun camos. I think they tried to do as Operation Flashpoint putting a touch of BF3. For me it is a great game because it reflects the harsh reality in the Middle East beyond. So if you are tired of the **** Call of duty every year is the same I recommend buying this or another game like BF Bad Company and Borderlans 2 Expand
  72. Jan 18, 2013
    10
    I believe there is a big difference between realistic and fantasy. I bought this game, played it through several times and loved it. Multiplayer is great and at last I can play as an Aussie. There are some minor glitches but nothing major. Story is engaging and having been to war myself I can relate to the problems soldiers face when returning home. The only complaint I have is that the single player campaign was only about 8 or 9 hours ( anyone who says 6 hasn't played it properly ), but that is about the same as any COD game. Expand
  73. Jan 23, 2013
    2
    I bought this game on release, and returned it the very next day. It really is that bad. On the back of a release like BF3 EA really could and should have done better. The campaign is marginally playable, and the multiplayer is pretty much the dullest online shooter experience I have ever had. This may have been patched or fixed, although I imagine most people who did give this more time went on to buy either BO2 or went back to BF3. This game is appalling. The only really positive point I can think of is that the game allowed you to have purple gun camo. That's it. Don't buy, it'll just end up as an expensive coaster. Don't buy it second hand either, come to think of it, as you need an online pass to play. Just. Don't. Buy. It. Expand
  74. Jul 8, 2013
    9
    I will admit, the first time that i played this game i did not give it a fair chance. I played to the first sniper sequence and decided that the game was trying to hard to be realistic, so i quite. However, now that i have finished the full game i can now tell you enough how completely off my first impressions were. This game has an amazing campaign with one of the most gripping and emotional stories that i have ever seen in a shooter! On top of that, the multiplayer is the best that i have ever played as far as FPS go! In the end Medal of Honor: Warfighter is an outstanding shooter! Sure its not without its got problems with frame rate, some glitchy cutscenes and a few other random bugs but that does not hold it back from being the best military FPS that i have ever played! CoD should certainly take a few lessons from the guys over at Danger Close! Can't wait to see where they take the Medal of Honor series next! Expand
  75. 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 a shame since it looked very good in the trailers. Expand
  76. Jun 10, 2013
    3
    Medal of honor: warfighter is a big big disappointment.
    Short story (but whit a good graphic) in single player, caotic menu in multiplayer (after the patch has worsened!!), few weapons and a bad use of the maps. You can not break anything (explosives do no damage to the huts of straw, for example), and the roads are required. There is a grove? I can not cross it, have to go around as is
    the '90?!
    70 euro at day one is a big price for a retrogame.... the poor version of battlefield 3
    Expand
  77. Oct 3, 2013
    10
    The story mode was better than battlefield 3 and it is awesome to play the role of real soldiers and on real missions! The online mode is very fun when you get used to the game play (You NEED to know when to camp and when to rush)
    IGN and etc all focused on the VERY small and pointless problems which makes others think the game is bad as for the glitch's i had zero of them (i know it's
    not the same for everyone) and its sad to see how much hate this game gets when it deserves more credit than any other fps!
    P.S If you think mohWF is full of glitch's you should go play bf3!
    Expand
  78. Sep 19, 2013
    10
    This game is epic! most people like IGN hate on it and lie through there teeth to make sure gamers don't buy it, first problem they had. "the enemy AI is easy and begging to get shot at", I died a couple times in a single mission on easy mode (never died on easy mode in CoD... just saying) another is the story mode. story was depicted and told by a REAL tier 1 solider. or as pre_-cision-_ said "As for the multiplayer its a cheap call of duty knock off." no not really, you have to do real like taking cover, lean and tilt around corners, and check areas before entering, instead of just running towards the enemy because "I HAVE A FLAKJACKET!!" and survive napalm and missiles...
    the graphics and missions are very good, considering the game convinced hard core CoD fan friends to say that this game is better by far than Black OpsII.
    I Recommend this game, but you can listen to IGN and buy halo instead
    Expand
  79. 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.
  80. Mar 13, 2014
    3
    I guess the game qualifies as... playable, but nothing else. I literally watched a NPC unload an entire clip into an enemies head, and the enemy got back up and shot at me. The enemies only focus on you, which makes the NPC's as useless as they have ever been and the controls are lackluster at best. There are upgrades, but they are useless at best and do nothing to add to the experience not do they serve as fun little goals. Expand
  81. Oct 30, 2012
    0
    I really do not understand all the bashing of this game by both the users or the critics. I only feel compelled to write this review because I feel the game is being grossly misrepresented as I have been having more fun than I ever had since BF3 and even prefer it to BLOPS. For the record I am a long time fan of both this series and COD and played all CODS (with the exception of MW3) dating back to when COD still was actually about real wars. I played the last MOH but forgot all about it when BLOPS was released.

    Is this game perfect? No. However it differentiates itself from the competition and executes far more right than it does wrong. This game appeals to the type of FPS fan that prefers to get their kills themselves rather than having a bot do it for them. If you are playing this to see something never before seen in gaming then you will be disappointed because that is not its intent. If having tons of real world customizable weapons, excellent character animations and visceral fire fights sounds appealing then pick this up. Two issues people seem most legitimately upset about are the menus and glitches. There are glitches but I cannot recall one of these games that did not have glitches upon release and I have already seen most issues that existed day one resolved. The menus are not broken., just different. I did not like them at first but once acclimated they were fine and since there is so much more you can do in the way of customization their manifold nature is understandable.

    MOH appeals to certain sensibilities that , according to the other reviews, are not valued by most. More Michael Mann than Jerry Bruckheimer, this game is not for everyone but if it fits your palette you are in for a deliciously satisfying meal.
    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]