User Score
5.4

Mixed or average reviews- based on 409 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 25, 2012
    6
    With a little more time to develop this game could have been great, but I think they released it before it was finished. The single player campaign had its' moments, but it just wasn't consistent throughout. The multiplayer was pretty fun, but it was buggy. It's a shame, I was really excited about this game, and it kind of let me down.
  2. Oct 31, 2012
    5
    I'll admit. I was hopeful. The prospect of another game made using the frostbite 2 engine had me almost giggling like a schoolgirl.

    Alas the game while it does have its good points has some rather painfully glaring flaws. It's almost like the developers thought, you know what this game isn't going to be played that much so let's just release it with the bare minimum of play-testing.


    The problems start early on i'm afraid. The first time you see a terrorist dive behind a car and start shooting at you you will probably think "this is fine I'll shoot him through the car windows when he pops up".

    WRONG!!!

    While admittedly if you shoot through the side door windows you may be able to score a hit or two (provided your gun will actually shoot where you are telling it to, unfortunately not always a given) all the smaller windows on a car are seemingly impenetrable. Not to mention the wooden pallets that these enemies have realised have become magically impervious to bullets. It does get a bit worrying when the bullets I'm firing can't manage to touch an enemy that is only partially covered by wooden slats.

    Then we move on to the "teammates" these guys seem to be running into the fray while taking no damage and pointing you out for every enemy who will suddenly decide that even though there's a whole squad of you its only you they want to shoot at. Don't get me wrong. I understand that in an fps game there will be more enemies shooting at you than at your teammates but why do A: my teammates not take advantage of this by shooting the guy stood right next to them unloading magazine after magazine into my face. And B: why do all of these bad guys seem to have superman's x-ray vision that let's them finish me off through the tiny crack in the cover I am currently cowering behind.

    Another issue i have with fps games now is their insistence on having literally every enemy you are currently engaged with mob you every time you reload a weapon. This would be understandable if the enemies didn't just hide around behind cover until exactly the moment you reload and then all of a sudden they have "decided" to run out after you. It's becoming a rather worrying pattern that as fps games are being brought out the enemy ai isn't being improved for a harder difficulty level. The designers are just giving them perfect aim and dirty tactics that abuse the games knowledge. At least my trusty squadmates will shoot the man running wildly towards me while I desperately try to reload my pistol! Oh wait ****

    The cutscenes in the game do provide some excitement as they are nothing short of beautiful. The characters look more like movie characters than models in a game. I had a rather wonderful moment near the end of the final cutscene where I wasn't sure if a certain part was filmed with real people or made using frostbite. The multiplayer experience isnt too bad. The guns are good fun the support options (though damn near impossible to aim) are impressive and you will definitely remember it the first time someone you are playing against gets Apache support. But on the whole the multiplayer just won't compete with battlefield 3's Overall this game is not great. If not for what would seem to be lazy play testing which if done properly could have made some changes for the better it could have been a much more fun game. Some of the set pieces are good fun and the multiplayer can be good too. I do think that this game falls short of the "would recommend to a friend category though 5/10.
    Expand
  3. Jan 9, 2013
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. surprised yet disappointed, i have just played the single player campaign and i have some mixed feelings. so far i think EA just told Danger Close to make a call of duty clone and slap the frostbite 2 engine on the cover. HERE IT IS KIDS! A MODERN SHOOTER LIKE ALL THE OTHERS! i had some fun with it, but the story could have been so much better. since the story is about the struggle of being in the navy or army in afganistan, you expect a deep and emotional story line. but i think EA force danger close with a small release date so it could come out before the new call of duty. if danger close had more time like maybe released it after the holidays to have a better story, longer campaign, and fixed some of the issues with the game (the game crashed on me twice) i would of loved it, i feel like this game was only released so that EA could get some cash on putting the Battlefield 4 sticker on it saying have beta access when it comes out. Expand
  4. Nov 3, 2012
    2
    The multiplayer of this game is horrible. Lots of issues in this game. The main issue that is roaming in the community is the hit detection. This is caused by lag. A lot of this is stemmed by other countries entering in another countries server. When this happens you get lag. Then you empty a whole clip into someone's back to have him turned around and 1 shot kill you. Then you notice he has 100 health. Sometimes you get good games and other times you get these type of games in multiplayer. Its obvious the game was rushed. You really can see how this can be a good game but it fails. This game will be almost dead next week when Halo comes out and will be a corpse once COD is released. Rent it before you buy it. You get a 2 day online pass to try it out. You can not go wrong if your curious by renting it first with the pass. Just remember it is not likely it will be supported for multiplayer after the holidays. Expand
  5. Feb 20, 2013
    7
    Like the previous installment to the Medal of Honor series, Warfighter is not being received well. As of right now, it has a user score of 4.9 and is receiving many negative reviews due to its short campaign, and buggy multiplayer. I personally loved the 2010 addition to the series, and am also quite enjoying this one. As of right now, im only 3-4 hours into the campaign (Which I guess is about half way through) and I only have one complaint. The story is completely un-original. But that's not a big deal for me anyway. Over the years I've learned to never expect anything from an FPS's story. The game runs on Dice's frostbite 2 game engine and looks just about as good as anything else on the market. Although I must say that the campaign does look slightly better than the multiplayer. The graphics are definitely one of the game's upsides. The multiplayer is as if BF and COD had a baby, which some people may see as a disaster, but I personally enjoy it. Definitely isn't as tacticle as BF, but at the same time still requires some thought unlike COD. It does feel a bit clunky at times though, I don't enjoy it as much as I enjoyed the original's multiplayer. Oh and did I mention that the maps aren't as open as MoH 2010's so spawn sniping is no longer an issue? (if you played MoH 2010 you know what I'm talking about.) In my opinion, this game is extremely under rated and is definitely one of the better first person shooters on the market. I give it a 7 out of 10. Expand
  6. Oct 27, 2012
    7
    This Game is really the problem with most shooters today. Its just completely uninspired. Everything in the game doesn't feel like its there for a reason other then it was cool in another game. Weather its the COD set pieces, the Ghost Recon F.S gun creator or the trying to be Spec Ops-The Line dramatic storyline. The Single Player is very bland, has BF3's level of AI and isn't challenging. The multiplayer is very bare bones with only minor tweaks in some games modes, most for the worst. If you want a good FPS either wait for BlackOps2 or pick up BF3 Premium and spend your money on something better. Expand
  7. Oct 31, 2012
    9
    Personally i think medal of honor warfighter, while plagued with a hand full of launch glitches, still manages to entertain, while looking beautiful doing it. Is it a game changer when it comes to the tier 1 shooters out there.... No not at all. But the new installment of the series by no means disappoints. The multi-player is pretty responsive and the maps look great, however very bland would be the adjective i would use to some up some of its layout and design. No matter how u look at it, this is a game that will either bring joy or frustration to a player. Expand
  8. Oct 29, 2012
    6
    I would liked to have seen a new setting than modern warfare again fighting in desert countries. still a half decent game, graphics are tolerable on xbox, singleplayer is standard shooter with some emotion. multiplayer has some new features (buddy system) not seen before but somehow still feels like an older shooter. the game has some terrible menus.. like unbelievably bad. overall you can pass it up not a must have game but still far better than MOH 2010. Expand
  9. Oct 31, 2012
    10
    Professional critics simply made their minds up on this title before they even played it. They hate FPS games and their negative reviews have more to do with an agenda than an honest review of this product in my opinion. I've played hours and hours of multi-player and this game is a blast! I love it! It is different, it is unique, it is really fun. Way more tactical than COD. The slew of negativity from reviewers seems unfounded and rooted in a preconceived bias. Wait a few weeks and watch them all go gushy fawning over COD Black ops 2. That's what this is all about. MOHW is a game for FPS fans who take their games seriously, not for quick-scoping 14-year-olds. User reviews here are so polarized - people either love it or hate it, that tells me its a diamond in the rough that people with limited attention spans simply haven't given the time it takes to appreciate its beauty. Expand
  10. Oct 30, 2012
    8
    (Xbox 360)
    Don't be fooled, this is game is great. for me it's an 8. Just creeped in, a low 8 but an nonetheless.
    Short story:
    Graphics:9
    Sound:8.5
    Presentation:5.5
  11. Oct 31, 2012
    8
    I liked this game.......well sometimes. The single player is just a normal story comparable to Call of Duty. The multiplayer feels like a different style....a new competitor. I love the class system and the game looks beautiful.
  12. Oct 31, 2012
    7
    This game was never given that chance due to the nit picky professional reviewers that seem to only pick out how the game is not the next call of duty. Its upsetting that the game never got given a chance with its great graphics and fun multiplayer. For me the campaign on any shooter in today's day and age is useless and all follow the same mold as the last making these reviews that are posted by sites like IGN where they pick apart how the campaign is to short and not worth it when most buy the game for the multiplayer aspect. The multiplayer is immersive and contains a lot of customizations that make the leveling up always better when new classes, guns, attachments and soldier units are unlocked. yes the game has glitches that may be a pain, but what game that comes out doesn't have problems when they first release? Assassins Creed 3, Borderlands 2? All im saying is that if people are to narrow minded to try and learn a new game then there will be no new variation in the FPS genre due to the repetitive COD series. I am by no means saying COD is not a good game but I am saying to make a better FPS it will take more than treyarch and Activition to do so. This game's release has been killed by the negative reviews that seem to have came from a very narrow minded, short play through. Given time the game has surprised me and im sure many others. All games have a learning curve and once past that this game, like most will surprise. Collapse
  13. Nov 1, 2012
    7
    OK - so the single player storyline of this game is something of a hot mess. Danger Close and EA set themselves up by over-promising and under-delivering on the campaign side of things as MoH definitely doesn't live up to the "based on actual events", "tells the true story of these heroes",
  14. Nov 2, 2012
    9
    I think this game is aweosome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  15. Nov 4, 2012
    8
    I am seriously blown away by all the hate towards this game. It's completely unwarranted. The graphics are stellar and the sound is even better. There are some truly cool moments in the single player campaign (including an awesome car chase sequence and the breeching scenes). Yes, the multiplayer has some issues, like the very unfriendly menu system, but otherwise, the fireteam buddy setup is an interesting addition, and the maps and classes are well-balanced. If you're into first person military shooters, you will like this game. I get the impression a lot of the negativity is coming from self-righteous reviewers that feel they need to punish this game because they weren't given an advance copy, and gamers that feel the FPS genre is stale. If you don't like FPS - don't play them. However, I love them, and play them almost exclusively, and this is a long way from the worst one I've ever played. If you enjoyed the 2010 MoH, or more recently Battlefield 3, you'll get a kick out of this. Expand
  16. Nov 4, 2012
    4
    So played MOH DoorFighter .. Completed the Campaign.. Its poor and repetitive but visually stunning. The Multiplayer is all the worst bits of COD with the hit reg of BF3 and some weird ass random spawning on most levels.. 4/10 at best.. Don't waste your ££
  17. Nov 4, 2012
    5
    I really wish they'd stop half-heartedly developing these games.

    The reboot of Medal of Honor was the first MOH I actually wanted to play. It was nice to see a game that had a more realistic (relatively anyways) take on the whole military FPS that Call of Duty has so dominated these past few years. When the first one came out (2010) I really enjoyed it, but the whole experience seemed
    rough around the edges; lots of graphics/audio glitches that could potentially ruin the atmosphere of a campaign mission. The story wasn't particularly strong, but that was never a huge issue in my mind in light of the absolutely gorgeous in-game environments (when they worked without glitches) that could literally be the closest thing to actually going the Afghanistan.

    The sad thing about 'Warfighter' is that it still has the potential at times to do the same thing. The key word though is 'potential;' this is a game that still doesn't live up to what it really could (and wants) to be. Many of the same issues that plagued the first release still pop up. In some ways, it manages to be worse. When you first put the disk in, the splash screen and menu look refined and quite beautiful. This ceases to be as soon as you make your first selection. The UI, while great to look at, is absolutely atrocious to use; quite simply it is the biggest flaw in the game and can seriously taint your experience, especially in multiplayer. When building your skill in a game, it should be only in the actual game; the UI in multiplayer literally requires you to practice it to avoid accidentally spawning as the wrong class or with the wrong loadouts. While I can deal with unbalance within any multiplayer experience, an near-unusable interface is completely unacceptable in ANY game.

    The campaign is on-par with the first. While once again the story isn't really too engaging. As someone that enjoys simulators though, I have generally have willingness to look past a mediocre/unengaging story and play as if it was simply a scenario. It's a fairly structured and linear like the first, so if open world or choose-your-own-path type play is essential to you, skip this game.

    Technically speaking the game, like the first, is incredible to behold when it works; it suffers from many of the same issues as it's predecessor. Strange glitches can really kill the atmosphere that this game tries to create. Graphics: 9
    Sound: 10
    Single Player: 7
    Multi-Player: 7.
    -----------------------------------------
    Overall: 5. While seemingly contradictory to the above numbers, my rating takes into account the the unrefined and frustrating aspects of the game; If not for that, I'd give it a 7.5
    Expand
  18. Nov 5, 2012
    0
    a real shame for EA. The story really sucks and it's full of racist **** The gameplay is too old and never surprises you. How can EA publish this **** ? How does it takes two years to make it ? Why have i played it and spent my time ?
  19. 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
  20. Nov 5, 2012
    8
    just need to put somethings out there. i am tired of games that hold your hand. i do not like corridor type shooters and i believe that call of duty has ruined fps's in this regard. now on to how i feel about this game. i loved the story of the 2010 reboot of moh even though the gameplay of the game was terrible i still though it was a great storyline. i also believed that the original multiplayer was terrible due to the fact that it wasnt fleshed out enough. the options of weapons, character classes and modes was incredibly boring. on to warfighter. the campaign still has the same ho hum funneled combat system. however i think the story and campaign once again make the single player campaign worth playing. there are certain games where i believe the story is worth getting through the horrific gameplay a la homefront. with that said lets talk about why people really buy such games.. multiplayer. i am a avid m/p gamer. i've played everything from cod (which i abhor), bc2, mag, brink, bf3 and the moh.

    my main concern with any multiplayer game is that it is team and objective based. i have no interest in playing team deathmatch or free for all. running around in circles killing people. brink was amongst the best m/p i have every played and i believe mag completely blew the competition away with its open ended class system and huge objective based battles. i am a veteran and i love communicating with people to get an objective completed. so witth that said here is what i think.

    moh warfighter does a amazing job in creating a hybrid if you will of combining the run and gun of cod and the teamwork of bf3. it does this by implimenting there six classes so well. you have 6 classes in the game on top of the 12 or so nations respective teir 1 operators. each of the classes has its own perk and loadouts which can not be changed. while i usually favor customization over set classes i do believe that moh did a great job creating the classes to fit within its maps parameters. i.e. the pointman has a perk of where you can use 'hot ammo' or piercing ammo and he can take down the demolitions specialist quicker than anyone else. however hot ammo is harder to shoot than normal ammo because it has more recoil. the demo spec has added armor and can use this by pressing up on the control pad. however once initiated he is unable to walk. he also has the ability to arm and disarm bombs faster than any other class. its a wonderful paper rock scissors system. the fireteam system is amazing when you are actually communicating with a teammate. i found my friend and i were completely relying on each other. playing as you would in a real situation. calling out enemies, screaming 'im reloading' to allow the other to grant cover to whomever was reloading and communicating on which score streak was most needed: either the offensive or the defensive streak. it was marvelous. no throughout my 20 hrs of playing on m/p i have no encountered any glitches or game ending bugs. i think the sound is amazing as it usually has been since bad company. the weapons feel great and i love the customization. i was surprised at first with the graphics.. it wasnt as photo realistic as i thought it would be. however after 2 hrs it severly grew on me. people have a hard time forgetting that the reason why we play games in the first place is fun. i have had no less fun with this than i have had with other m/p games. i enjoyed the game modes and of course could always use more. i like how call of duty has 18 or so game modes, its just a shame that the game sucks due to its inability to create any sort of teamwork or communication other than racial and homophobic slurs. if you want a solid game look no further. if you have someone to play with believe me this is a worthy alternative to bf3 of which i absolutely love. i played brink and was able to look past the texture pop in's short campaign and lack of community however i still pop it in because it was incredibly creative and fun and thats what i believe moh: warfighter does.
    Expand
  21. Nov 5, 2012
    10
    the game is Awesome short campaign put it has some frustrating moments i am giving it a 10 the maultiplayer is good and challenging and the features the options 4 breaching the door is good
  22. Nov 8, 2012
    3
    Shocking! Very short (4 hours gameplay on the campaign). Generic indeed. Cynic exploitation of the frachise (I used to be a fan --> not any more). Don't bother Buy Halo4 instead.
  23. Dec 21, 2012
    10
    I mainly played this for the campaign - if you are mainly in it for the campaign, then this game is awesome. Some of the missions are based on real life special ops missions that have taken place, and if you finish the story you will really appreciate the game that much more. I'm not much for playing online in shooters like this, but I did try it for a few hours and it was ok online too. You seem to be able to upgrade weapons and gear pretty quickly if you're half decent. Expand
  24. Nov 9, 2012
    7
    The single player, is short but great. The story and plot makes sense, and overall an awesome campaign. The multiplayer is another thing, it is very fun and solid but has problems. The maps design is generally good, but some maps are designed to be unbalanced, in therms of spawn-killing. The graphics are awesome, but not on par with Battlefield 3. The soundtrack and sound on the other hand is close to perfect. This is a good game, but with the problems it has i will give it a 7/10. Expand
  25. Nov 24, 2012
    0
    This is not a review, it is a protest. As an offline player only, a 5 hour, uninspired, buggy campaign is not worthy of my hard earned dollar. I won't be contributing to the retirement funds of those lazy sods at EA & Danger Close Games who take the piss out of anyone buying this game expecting value for money. Shame on you.
  26. Nov 17, 2012
    9
    I'm mostly going to talk about the multiplayer. The single player was fun but the AI is completely stupid and worthless. It's a pop and shoot gallery where you MUST wait to follow your squad captain or you'll be punished and killed almost instantly. But the multiplayer is where this game really shines for me. It sits in a perfect place between the fast combat of COD and the tactics of BF3. The fireteam system is really really great. Also the peak and lean, run and slide mechanics are truly awesome. When I play other FPS games now, I always try to peak and lean and get ammo from a buddy, but it never works. These couple things really make the game great. There are still some bugs, but I'm confident they will be fixed as a lot have been already. It's really a fun game and I would suggest it to anyone who wants a more tactical team based multiplayer experience. Expand
  27. Nov 25, 2012
    9
    Medal of Honor Warfighter is a great game that runs off of Battlefield 3's realistic Frostbite 2 engine and is a direct sequel to Medal of Honor. Set in Modern day Medal of Honor Warfighter shows off the hard work tier 1 operators participate in to keep us free. Campaign plot: Preacher is a tier 1 operative who has been to hell and back in order to protect his country yet his wife wants to seperate from him because he does not reveal important war information to her, and is gone most of the time. Preacher recalls the events in which he has been through while his wife makes him feel depressed. Multiplayer: Each team is made up of Warfighters, men of different nationalities who have trademark skill in their respective weapons and tactics. Warfare is realistic and addicting as each team of Warfighters fight for victory. My opinion: I believe this is a great game despite what the majority of the community thinks. If you liked Battlefield 3 you will like this otherwise you are a hater. There is nothing wrong with this game as well it looks and plays amazing and will pump adrenaline throughout you. Expand
  28. Dec 24, 2013
    6
    Instead of forcing a rotation between Battlefield and Medal of Honor, EA should let their developers take as much time as they need to make a really good game. When you play this game and get into it, you can tell the developers know how to make a great game, but, it is not their fault this game was a failure. Medal of Honor also should not be placed in the Holiday Season like other big games, there is no way you're going to get better sales out of releasing your game when big games like COD, AC, Halo and other games do, and Medal of Honor isn't even popular enough to compete there. This game needed to be released in its own time such as Spring 2013; around April or May time.

    As a result, there are 3 big problems with this game ::

    1. The classes are a big problem, the developers wanted to make some move faster and the others move slower, a good idea when it comes to making advantages and weaknesses for each class, but they made Demolitions awkwardly slow, too slow. All the weapons in Sniper, Point Man and Assaulter are a copy and paste of one-another, exactly the same but with different sound effects, clearly the developers wanted loads of guns but didn't have the time to, 12 for each class. There are 12 guns for Assaulter and really it is only 3 for example, they are all the same except the sound effects are different, and the Point Man class only has 4 guns, the rest are copy and paste as well. Sure, some guns can be the same, but there should have been atleast 8 different guns for each class. The guns for Spec-Ops and Demolitions lack range, sure, they are supposed to be short range, but they are too short of range. The light machine guns are too inaccurate as well, they clearly did not have enough time to test and finalise these six classes, they would have found they needed adjustments.

    2. The NPC allies in the single player are poor, they don't really move to shoot the enemy and instead leaves the player to do it, more work was needed.

    3. Very few game modes, TDM, Sector Control, 2 Rush modes and Home Run, and that's it. They could have done traditional Capture The Flag, and a mode where they have to fight over a bomb and fight to take it to each others base for example, but there was no time.

    Still, the single player is interesting and based on real events, and I like Tier 1, the levels are good, the story is interesting, and I like the car scenes. Throughout the game, you will be doing slow motion breaches, what's good about this is that you unlock different ways to knock down the door, making it interesting and fun.

    Multiplayer is really good and also interesting, every class has its own strength and weaknesses, the maps are really good and sort of different from what other games do, I love the confined maps. The game has a sense of reward (For me it does) especially when you're doing great, you have a Fireteam Buddy and the game encourages you two to work together; teamwork is key to victory. The teams are simply called "Home" and "Away."

    I find Homerun addictive when I'm playing well, there are different things you can do, be a sniper and put mines on the flags, use Spec-Ops to see where the enemy is, use Point Man if you want, stick together and look out. There are 2 flags, and normally the teams split off into different directions of the map and it becomes a tactical battle, there are different approaches you can go, and whether you use Point Man or Spec-Ops or Recon depends on what you think is best to do based on what's going on and what the enemies' doing, both teams take turns in attacking and defending.

    Multiplayer is really good, I love the thing where you select a nation to play as, Norway, UK, Canada, Sweden, Russia, Australia, Poland, Germany, South Korea and the USA. I really like the way the game is in general as well, the gun cameos and customization, I love the maps (Hard to explain), and I do play the multiplayer. I really like to go through the multiplayer soldiers, they are really interesting.

    Medal of Honor Warfighter is a really good game, it's a shame Electronic Arts forced this game release so unfinished, it really brings this game down, annoys me so much. Now there will be no more Medal of Honor for atleast 5 or 6 years (A guess). Still, I have a good time with the multiplayer, but I am always being frustrated by the weapons being the same and the light machine guns being inaccurate, yes, they are supposed to be harder to handle but not so inaccurate that instead using other weapons is better. The single player is good, so what if it's so guided and linear.
    Expand
  29. Dec 1, 2012
    10
    Very nice game, far more realistc than other fps games, better sound, very good graphics, weapons costumization is a very nice adittion and the firetam buddy system works very fine.
  30. Mar 8, 2013
    9
    I've played just about 1st and 3rd person shooter on the xbox market and I have to say (regardless of what others say) that this is a fun game. Important note I am only critiquing the single-player campaign, not the multiplayer. Does it have the top notch graphics No. Does it do anything different that another shoot hasn't already done No. Does the story sort of suck Yes. But for the $30 I payed, it kept me fully entertained and I don't feel like I got gyped. I remember playing every Medal of Honor game that came out for the PC, enjoying each one of them. Of course once I complete the single-player campaign, this'll probably sit with my other games gathering dust. But I bought this game knowing not to expect something other than a first person shooter which has you completing different levels with a few tricks here and there. I figured I could've spent my $30 on a movie or something else but I wanted something which would keep me engrossed for a few days and so far I've been playing this for the last couple of weeks. If you compare this game against other first shooters, you'll probably give this game a low score. But if you compare this game on the basis of entertainment regardless of the cheeky story, it's not bad. It's some of the same old 1st person shooter stuff but you can see the effort that went into it to make it a little more than average than the typical shooter. I'm glad I spent the money on this one mainly for the entertainment it's given me so far. Besides, there are some really cool parts in it. I've been disappointed by a lot of other 1st person shooters but this is not one of them. I wouldn't pay over $30 for it but I'm glad I got it. Expand
  31. Mar 7, 2013
    4
    Not much to say really...Medal of Honor: Warfighter is a pretty but buggy, frustrating and tedious experience. Graphics: 8.5/10 Gameplay: 4/10 Features: 4/10 Ignore this game...AND it's predecessor if you haven't played it already, I guarantee you won't be missing much. It probably doesn't need recommendation but FPS fans should look towards the much greener pastures of Call of Duty. Expand
  32. Dec 10, 2012
    5
    Pros: Beautiful graphics (See Cons). Some (definitely not all of them) of the set pieces in this game are awesome and well executed. There are some vehicle mission that were really fun. The controls feel awesome. I don't think I ever had a problem with my avatar doing something I didn't want it to. Audio was great the guns sounded satisfying, the music was okay, and the voice acting was done well. (See Cons)
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cons:
    A 1.7GB HD install is required (If you want the game to look good and believe me, this is one of the few things going for it).

    Doesn't let you play hardest difficulty without beating it on a lower one first.

    You're required to breach a lot of doors and you get different breach options based on the amount of headshots executed during breaches. These options really don't change gameplay and most of them only extend the animation time. At some points in the game, I had enemy AI that moved with inhuman speed.

    Audio glitched at least 3 times during my playthrough. (nonstop gunfire sound that didn't go away unless you reloaded the game from the last checkpoint)

    Not very realistic as you are given unlimited ammo for your pistol.

    The multiplayer may be fun with a group of friends but certainly not on your own.

    In most cases I experienced my friendly AI allowing enemies to walk right up behind me.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The linear, single player campaign is short, it only took me about 8 hours to complete. I know the cons outnumber the pros but they certainly don't outweigh them. While this game is certainly not worth $60, it is worth a playthrough.

    Rent
    Expand
  33. Dec 30, 2012
    9
    By far one of the best shooters out. Not really a black ops guy. The frostbite system kills it. The graphics are amazing as we'll as the guns and story line. Just wish it had a longer campaign.
  34. Jan 6, 2013
    4
    Before I review the game I want to talk about the way this game was marketed. When they released trailer footage, they were clearly showing off PC footage while using an xbox 360 controller because you can see 360 button input commands on the screen. (X for reload, D Pad to activate killstreak, etc) This caused me to believe that they were showing 360 footage from the get go. I was very wrong. What was being shown was PC footage probably from a high end rig and making it seem like it was from the Xbox. I tried asking them on twitter about this and they never responded to me. This left a very bad taste in my mouth and to this day I'm still not happy about it. Now onto the the game. I picked this game up at a midnight release and almost didn't get to play it that night because the copy I got was defective. Luckily the Gamestop guy was nice enough to stay open long enough for me to rush down there and exchange it. (Off to a great start) Single player campaign is pretty generic. Get from point A to point B and shoot also its very short. Visually, this game is o k. It runs at 30 fps and in my honest opinion, Frostbite 2 doesn't look good on consoles. It's way to powerful for the current generation of consoles to handle. Until the new consoles come out, Frostbite 2 looks at its best on PC. (FYI I don't own a PC in case your thinking I'm a PC fanboy. I've been gaming on consoles my whole life). The sounds in this game are very nice. My only complaint with the sound is that there are a lot of hiccups and makes the presentation look very sloppy (Sometimes you won't hear reload, explosions cut out, etc.) Now lets get into multiplayer. This is where the game "shines". At first the menus are confusing to navigate through but overtime you will get the hang of it. Pretty generic game modes such as Team Deathmatch, Domination, etc. Weapon customization is nice and there's a lot of depth to it. I'll go far enough to say that there is too much depth. It is so time consuming that it's something that should be done before you start a match. You can change everything from the barrel type, clip type, camos, optics, etc. Don't get me wrong its a nice feature but it takes too long if you wanna sit there and try to customize everything on your gun. Lets talk about the maps. Again, the maps are super generic. No eye candy here. Some maps have horrendous texture loading issues. (My biggest complaint) I forget which map it was but the texture loading issues are pretty bad to the point where the game just felt unacceptable to me. It seriously made me look at my xbox and want to throw it out the window because it felt *outdated*. But I play other games that run beautifully at 60 fps on the same *outdated* console. Its not the console that's the problem, its the game! At the time of release this game felt unfinished. I kept running into issues and I began reporting them to their twitter account. I sent pictures and videos of issues and they thanked me every time I did it. After a while of doing this it got very old. I'm a customer, not a game tester. I shouldn't be doing there job of trying to look for bugs in this game. I got fed up with this game along with them not fixing this bug infested game fast enough and ended up trading it in. Not a good experience at all. Wait for this game to be in the bargain bin for 9.99. Don't pay anything more than that. If your jumping from COD to this game, expect to lower your standards a bit to play this game. Expand
  35. Jan 31, 2013
    8
    Medal Of Honor Warfighter is the most under rated game of 2012. With the release of crack of duty, Halo 4 and Borderlands 2 this game was overlooked by the FPS community. Most just took the critics word for it that it sucked. The average critic bashed it more than likely because they didn't get their copies before release ( cry babies). Sure the game has its faults but all games do and none are perfect. Anybody that has played BF3 knows this is true. Is the campaign repetitive? Well in terms of killing waves of enemies moving to next check point and the same thing happening I guess. There are good breaks in the campaign specifically the driving missions which to me was a good break and very well done. If you took MOH-W driving missions and compared them to any COD driving mission it makes COD's attempt laughable. With that being said all shooters are repetitive in the same ways with killing waves of enemies and moving up so you cant take away points from a game for this because all shooters do it. I guess the question is why does COD, BF3, Halo, Ghost Recon not suffer in score for repetitiveness in the campaigns? It seems to me that something behind the scenes went on to get the bad score.

    Campaign Rating Gameplay 9.0 Story 9.5 Voice acting 10 (There is almost nothing worse than bad voice acting to ruin the mood of a campaign) Dialog between characters 10 (not one cheesy bit of dialog in this game) Graphics 8.5 Musical Score 9.0 Cinematics 10 Some of the best Ive seen so far

    After playing the campaign I have to say that MOH-W excels in all that I look for in a FPS campaign. I would have liked if they would have chosen some different avenues like letting the player have control of the sky diving parts, adding destructible environments on a BC2 level, and maybe some under water tasks for the navy seals to spice it up some. But all in all a solid campaign

    Multiplayer experience
    I have made it to level 100 so I have soaked in this game unlike the 1 week playtime review you get from major critics. With that being said the Multiplayer is fun with friends and annoying with random players as is with all shooters. Fireman team is a good idea but needs tweaking in game. There is no way to link up in game with a friend you have to be in the Fireteam before you search for a game. Map design is really good designed to create lots of action and the new Hotspot game mode is killer. To me its one of the best game modes I have played in a shooter. Plenty of gun camos which I love, some weapon attachments leave you with a disadvantage. All classes have there uniqueness to them. The Assault class is the most popular since they have the most powerful guns. Getting ammo and health can be annoying at times and I wish they would have done something similar to BF3 with that. Real Ops/Hardcore is the way to go with MOH-W taking away the red glow of enemy characters, also leaving you with no hud and not letting you know if you killed the guy. Menu layout takes some getting use to but it is refreshing and unique.
    Explosions get to be excessive at times with what seems like 100 yard grenade throws, Point streaks seem easier to get in this game and can get out of hand at times. In my experience with this game I give it a total score of 8 its just not bad enough to get a 5. Multiplayer Rating
    Gameplay 9.0
    Map Design 8.0
    Game Modes 8.5
    Weapons 8.0 Gun Sounds 8.0

    Yes I know this has been out for a while now and Im late to the review table but I think this game deserves some credit, so I wanted to give it some
    Expand
  36. Aug 1, 2013
    7
    Modern shooters nowadays have seemingly gotten a big spoon of gravel and ate it like corn flakes to show a gritty and dusty real world view of real life on a battlefield. Medal of Honor Warfighter ate quite a big bowl of it this too... and then got a tummy ache. Medal of Honor Warfighter is a sequel to Medal of Honor 2010, where it has received a massive graphic overhaul and a much more chaotic and overwhelming gameplay.

    The game's story takes place several months or so after Medal of Honor 2010 where a group of terrorist plan more attacks on western world and it's up to you and your teammates to hunt them down and restore the piece. And that's all to say about it, as you go through missions just to hunt people down and shoot terrorist. Very generic and dull.

    Multiplayer on the other hand is much more then it once was. As firefights get chaotic but rely on teamwork and a good aim to win. Teammates can heal and resupply you when ever you need it, allowing a single team of two to overcome other odds. Weapon customization is a luxury, as you must grind through levels to unlock attachments and new variety of guns.

    Play this game for multiplayer, and you'll get every benefit you paid for.
    Expand
  37. Apr 28, 2013
    4
    Dice has stepped down from Battlefield 3.The campagin is stupid and boring and the multiplayer you take forever to respawn and the guns ate really bad.
  38. May 18, 2013
    6
    The campaign is lackluster and linear but it still manages to tell a story which is interesting in my eyes but really the multiplayer is where it is at i really enjoy the buddy system what can help me in tough situations overrall Medal of honr is an a ok game plus the frostbite 2 is amazing just like always
  39. Feb 21, 2014
    7
    I picked up this game pretty cheap and whilst we expect a lot from these AAA titles I don't feel like a company forking out more cash and man power on a project by any means should allow us to be more critical of it than we would of a smaller budget game. I found the visuals to be on par with any of the best shooters out now, I found the storyline was made engaging by the more personal aspects which were featured and I found it altogether an enjoyable experience.

    I did not play the multiplayer and I could understand someone being upset with the length of the single player if they had paid full price for the game. I found the tilt mechanic excellent and think it would be a welcome addition to any FPS. If you like first person shooters and can get it cheap I think it is well worthwhile giving it a whirl.
    Expand
  40. Jun 18, 2013
    7
    Even though the game offered very little difference in terms of story from its predecessor the multiplayer went on to be the strong point with bold moves with the two man fire teams and the fantastic use of the Frostbite 2 engine developed for Battlefield 3.

    7 out of 10
  41. Nov 11, 2013
    7
    Medal of Honor: Warfighter is what I consider a under-rated game in my eyes. The plot is one of the more better fps stores out there sense their based on real mission in the army. It also has some with it as well, the campaign would take to three to four hours to complete making it feel short and forgettable. The characters aren't that great and forgettable expect Preacher the main character who you play as thought the game including Stump and let me just say almost every character has big bushy breads. The multiplayer is like a combination of Battlefield and Call of Duty multiplayer, it has that Call of Duty style maps. There are six different classes to choose from and there are hundreds of combination for each weapons like sniper rifles, assault rifles, smgs, lmgs, and the classic shotguns. The controls are well done and has different controls layout like Call of Duty, Halo, and Battlefield style controls. But there are flaws in the game itself. The looks good for a Xbox 360, but the models look rough and blocky like Battlefield 3 on the Xbox. The frame rate can slow down at time and extremely liner and the multiplayer community is small and the multiplayer has one major problem a match would not run if you don't have a dlc pack like in COD: World at War. Medal of Honor series is having a rouge start with the modern style look. Hope EA does not decide to make the series I mess. Expand
  42. Jul 21, 2013
    6
    First, let me start by saying that the graphics in this game are incredible as always, but that is one of only few positive notes about the latest installment of the MoH series.

    Campaign 6/10 very confusing and difficult to follow in the beginning, but the end explained most of it
    UI/HUD/Interface 5/10 the peek and lean is good in theory, but not in practice. Also, players are
    stuck with the M4/M16 platform in singleplayer
    Graphics and IGE 10/10 stunning!
    Multiplayer 3/10 a Call of duty MW2/3 style of play in a BF/MoH frostbite engine. Overall it was not a good mix, but maps were interesting and multi-dimensional
    Expand
  43. Oct 8, 2013
    5
    Medal of Honor Warfighter is that game where you just can't decide if you like it or not, the level design is even more linear than CoD, and it holds nothing that makes it a good shooter, although I love the well directed cutscenes, but the story isn't that good, the voice acting is very well done as well, but some parts in the game do look very gritty there are other parts that make you think otherwise.
    Over all this game could've been something but failed, I would just recommend watching a walkthrough if you're desperate to play it.
    Expand
  44. Aug 24, 2013
    10
    Medal of Honor Warfighter is the best; first person shooter of 2012. Rather than the game being a redone or cliff-hanger story-it is based of real events on the war against terror. The story is more emotionally engaging than many other shooters; a realistic relationship between a Navy SEAL who is always on mission and his wife who wants him to be at home instead of fighting. The game fells a lot like the movie; Act of Valor-in its best parts. The graphics and details are gorgeous, with the audio and voice acting adding extra love into the game. The set-pieces feel important and there won't be many "Wish I was playing in that skybox" moments. The action is paced well; stealth, assault, turret an vehicle sections have great impact on sense of place and urgency. The controls are precise and responsive and three features that are great are-asking allies for ammo, sliding and leaning; adding a more in-depth experience. The campaign lasts a fair while and the multiplayer continues the fun. The online game feels more like Counter-Strike than COD or Battlefield and the great controls, along with a streamlined buddy system and different real world soldiers that operate differently add extra touches. If that wasn't enough-you can access the Battlefield 4 demo. Medal of Honor Warfighter isn't getting the best reviews, but that's only due to COD and Halo; in truth; Medal of Honor is an engrossing experience-Buy or regret. Expand
  45. Sep 24, 2013
    6
    Grafikk: 8 Lyd: 8 Gameplay: 6 Varighet: 5 Online: Ikke prøvd Positive: Bra lyd fra våpene i spillet, god grafikk, cover-system som fungerer, føles realistisk Negative: Uinteressant historie, bringer ikke noe nytt til sjangeren, en del bugs, dårlig AI. Kort summert: Hadde forventninger til dette Warfighter, men dessverre ble jeg skuffet. Warfighter er ikke direkte dårlig, men med en forvirrende historiedel, dumme medsoldater og småbugs over hele linja gjør dette til en skuffelse. Expand
  46. Feb 12, 2014
    10
    gamingtrend: are you f**king kidding me (piss poor planning) how about this you can eat a Di(K this game is awesome if you stupid F**K's took the time to rate the name much less the game. Well im sure you and your team went into depth with the C-O-D well the name at least did you even pick up the controller or did you just read the cover "piss poor" its stupid F**K's like you that made this game seam something its not. Expand
  47. Oct 31, 2012
    0
    This game was never given that chance due to the nit picky professional reviewers that seem to only pick out how the game is not the next call of duty. Its upsetting that the game never got given a chance with its great graphics and fun multiplayer. For me the campaign on any shooter in today's day and age is useless and all follow the same mold as the last making these reviews that are posted by sites like IGN where they pick apart how the campaign is to short and not worth it when most buy the game for the multiplayer aspect. The multiplayer is immersive and contains a lot of customizations that make the leveling up always better when new classes, guns, attachments and soldier units are unlocked. yes the game has glitches that may be a pain, but what game that comes out doesn't have problems when they first release? Assassins Creed 3, Borderlands 2? All im saying is that if people are to narrow minded to try and learn a new game then there will be no new variation in the FPS genre due to the repetitive COD series. I am by no means saying COD is not a good game but I am saying to make a better FPS it will take more than treyarch and Activition to do so. This game's release has been killed by the negative reviews that seem to have came from a very narrow minded, short play through. Given time the game has surprised me and im sure many others. All games have a learning curve and once past that this game, like most will surprise. Collapse
Metascore
53

Mixed or average reviews - based on 43 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 43
  2. Negative: 8 out of 43
  1. Dec 18, 2012
    67
    Decidedly 'meh.' [Jan 2013, p.64]
  2. Dec 17, 2012
    40
    Bland, glitchy, linear to a fault and hopelessly redundant. You could go your whole life without playing this and not miss anything. [Jan 2013, p.72]
  3. 50
    Okay in short bursts, but there's no reason to play single-player. A huge missed opportunity on EA's part and another year it won't be taking COD's crown. [Issue#92, p.78]