User Score
5.4

Mixed or average reviews- based on 414 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. May 6, 2014
    7
    Great game, but still lacks something that i cant quite put my finger on. Great controls and game play, and has a unique flavor to it that doesn't make it feel too much like a COD game. But even with all that, it still is one of those games that make you say meh.
  2. Apr 24, 2014
    10
    Amazing game with graphics that blew me away. The game includes an awesome campaign that had stunning graphics and fun game play. I don't understand the hate on this game; I think it's AWESOME!
  3. Feb 27, 2014
    6
    campaign only review - medal of honor does a number of things right but there is nothing ground breaking that makes this game a standout against the saturated market of FPS games that are available on 360/ps3. The story is uninspired and is the typical military problems and how it impacts solidiers and while this does sound important and make you feel bad for the troops that are involved in harrowing war stories - it is hard to feel sympathy for guys who mow through hundreds and hundreds of enemies in each levels throughout this short campaign. i was able to be the campaign on normal in about 7 hours without any trouble. I thought the levels were all in fairly typical locations and followed the same paths that i have played many times before - follow down this corridor killing everyone in windows, mount the MG, kill all these dumb soldiers who pop their heads out or run out of cover for no reason, breach and clear this room and escort this guy here. the game doesn't do anything that we haven't seen before.

    What is great about this game though is that it looks fantastic. the graphics are great, the weather effects are really outstanding, the environments stand out, the character models and the animations by the soldiers all react fluently and allow for the gameplay to be solid. the reload animations and the weapons look great and react like guns, they have recoil and feel powerful. The sound and the score of this game are also really great. the music in places has dramatic effects and adds to the immersion and the guns sound loud and mean. it adds to the experience and with good surround sound/gaming headset it makes playing this game bearable. despite all the flaws in the game it is still a decent shooter if you are not expecting something to wow you like call of duty 4/battlefield bad company 2
    Expand
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Nov 24, 2013
    6
    This game was decent but if I would have seen or played demo I would of passed it up. There was nothing really interesting about this game except the facts of it being realistic and not fake like most games.
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. Mar 18, 2013
    7
    Its not a Good Game and Its not a Bad Game, Its Only an OKAY Game. Besides I Love the Graphics and The Promising Game play, But Looks Less Smilier to Battlefield 3.
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Feb 11, 2013
    3
    Medal of Honor in 2010 was a bad game. So is this a sequel better then the original? No its not! It still suffers from hat made it bad in 2010 and more things bad about it. The e3 gameplay looked good but they were careful on what gameplay they showed i guess and it turned out to be a game. Campaigns characters are just dull and boring and cant even remember some of there names now. Story is just confusing and I always wondered, why im i here and what am i doing and at the end just relised you had to kill a few guys and thats it. Bugs and audio bugs were happening way too much and ruined the experience when it was good. Only good thing to say about it is that it looked awesome when I was playing it but thats about it. Multiplayer... with frostbite 2 engige it should be great? Well nope. Just basic game modes and nothing amazing about it, like the class system tho. Overall a b piece of Medal of Honor: Warfighter 3.4/10 Expand
  22. 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
  23. Jan 30, 2013
    5
    Where to begin... first things first, this game makes use of Frostbite 2. For the most part, the visuals are quite beautiful, and several scenes are quite striking. Of course, you need to download the optional 1.7 Gig Texture Pack in order to appreciate this. If you can't, then be prepared to be assaulted by some of the most horrendous textures I've seen. I wasn't able to download it. Seriously, without the pack, it looks like everything was painted on by someone who doesn't know how to paint a fence. I hope for your sake that you can do so yourself. Moving on, the gunplay that the game has is fairly solid, but the problem is that the firefights are completely marred by glitches and piss-poor A.I. Rule of thumb, a large 50 meg patch coming out directly at the game's launch is never a good sign. Also, I've seen plenty of times in which enemy soldiers rush out to me in the open, and don't get me started on my team mates. Sure, they're smart enough not to jump into my sights, but aside from giving me ammo when I need it, they're completely useless. They can barely hit ANYONE, and to top it off, they kept nudging me out of cover and into direct fire: Annoying as hell. The other big problem of the game is that when you get right down to it, it really offers absolutely nothing new to the formula. We've played all the sequences, all the environments before, from the stealth segment, to the helicopter gunship level, but this game adds nothing new. It just rehashes stuff that's already been done before. Oh sure there's the breaching sequences, but aside from looking cool, there's no gameplay differences, and the novelty wears off fairly quickly. Then we come to the story. It's not as bad as everyone's been saying, and can even be touching at times, but it suffers from two major problems. One, is that the player characters are talking in the pre-rendered cutscenes, but are silent in game. That's just disconnection. The second problem, is that some of the levels and segments have little meat on them. Take the one in which you snipe one pirate off of a ship. One shot, one kill, mission ends. ONE SHOT: MISSION ENDS. That is not how you build a level. That's not to say the game's totally hopeless. The gunplay is reasonably solid, as I said before, the sound's pretty good and, strangely enough, there are some surprisingly intense driving sequences. It's not a bad game per say, but there's really nothing here that nothing here that hasn't already been done before (if not better) by its competitors. I therefore rate this game a solid MEH. Rent this game, don't bother buying it. P.S: did anyone else find Preacher's wife and daughter to be REALLY creepy looking? I sure as hell thought so. Expand
  24. Jan 15, 2013
    10
    I am very upset at the negative reviews that this marvelous team game is receiving. I am very scared of the future of gaming because if it's not call of duty.. It's not getting a good review. Or record breaking sales. This game requires actual teamwork during its multiplayer matches. Unlike most of the shooters that are released these days. This games realistic teamwork tips its cap to games like socom, America's army, mag for ps3, and with the design matching todays gorgeous shooters like cod and it's older brother battlefield 3. This games score should be coming in at around the 8-8.5 range.. Because if you are looking for different than the typical brainless shooters that are being made as we speak.. (cod, same thing every year and gets hailed as a great new adventure each time, bs!) check this game out. You'll thank me later. Promise. Expand
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. Jan 3, 2013
    4
    firstly the good news, a mixed bag of missions to play though and a fps unique all-driving segment. however this 'mixed bag' only lasts around 4-5 hours. i feel that it's 2010 prequel was a much better purchase and much more immerse. also if the updates are not available to you will encounter a number of bugs in audio and ai etc. lastly the plot is not as well explained or introduced as in its predecessor Expand
  28. 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.
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. Dec 7, 2012
    7
    I bought this game a discounted price a few days ago. I was going to buy it on the day but I heard poor things about etc so I didn't. Now that I have I think people have given this game way to much hate, its not that bad, the story mode was a bit boring and there are quite a few glitches and bugs but besides that the multiplayer is a ton of fun and anyone who likes bf3 or any fps should at least try this game out before listening to the people who didn't give it the time of day. Expand
  32. 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.
  33. Nov 26, 2012
    7
    First of all I will just say, don't listen to the critics, official reviews, etc. Second thing I will say, put your biased opinions aside and forget everything you know about Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc. and let's move on.
    I enjoy aspects of the major military shooters including the unconventional Ghost Recon Future Soldier, so my review isn't fueled by love or hate towards one
    franchise over another. I'm looking at Medal of Honor through an unbiased set of eyes and am isolating this shooter as its own game.

    When I first played MOHW. I didn't know what to expect. I was less than impressed by the beta. In the beta the graphics were bad, gameplay was buggy, connection issues, etc. However, I didn't let this affect my opinion too much because I remember the Battlefield 3 Beta had similar issues.

    First off, for those worried about the crappy graphics in the multiplayer beta, there is an optional HD texture pack that you can install which does improve things both in the campaign and in multiplayer (similar to what was done with BF3). Still, the Multiplayer graphics aren't as good as the campaign, but still better than the beta. If you have the HD space, it takes up over 1 GB of storage and it is worth installing.

    Starting with Single Player. The game looks and sounds amazing. The gunshots, explosions, everything has rich deep sounds that rival any game on the market. When in combat, the duck & cover options are great. Why more FPS don't have this option, I'll never understand. You can hug your body against cover, pop around a corner or over cover and get some quick shots off and then quickly duck behind cover again. It seems that only games with 3rd person options like Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six, Gears of War, etc. offer this feature. This feature also carries over to multiplayer as well, which is nice, although the fast paced actions of MP usually don't allow for much time for peeking around corners or out of windows as someone is usually running behind you, ready to stick a hatchet into your back while you play peek-a-boo. It is nice to have the option for specific defensive situations, but is a feature that works best in campaign mode where you can take your time behind cover.

    The downside to the campaign is that it is really short (as expected for most shooters these days) and extremely linear. This is where a lot of critics are bashing this game. Length of Campaign and a lot of linear hand holding as you breech rooms, move from one shooting gallery to the next. The same is true for this game. However, why MOHW gets dinged for this in reviews, but COD doesn't is beyond me. Perhaps the story telling could have been better, but isn't this pretty much what FPS have been boiled down to lately? Isnt this kind of expected. Still I found the campaign to be fun, intense, and just about what I'd expect in a modern FPS. Let's face it though. Most people thesedays buy these games for the Multiplayer and get around to the campaign later, if at all. The Multiplayer is good in my opinion. A lot of weapon customization, character options, class specializations, etc. Each class has a role to play (whether players use their role properly is another issue). Like the previous MOH game, this game does have kill streak rewards and usually come with the option of a defensive support action or an offensive. You choose which to use depending on what you & your team needs at the time. The focus of this game is more team driven. For example, having the option to spawn at deployment or spawn on your "buddy" is pretty nice. If your buddy is out of harms way, you can spawn on him and stick close together. You can offer ammo & heal each other which can tip the scale of firefights in your favor if you are a good teammate and work together with your buddy. The game modes are mostly objective based games, territory control or team deathmatch. Nothing too innovative here. This game loses some points for their menus and navigation. The menus used to customize your soldiers and create your weapon loadouts can be a real pain until you get used to it. More thought could have been given to creating a more seamless experience when customizing your characters/weapon loadouts, etc. The menus system is clunky and frustrating at first.

    Overall, I disagree with some of the reviews that give this game anything less than a 6. It isn't a great game, but it is a good game. It isn't as bad as some of the reviews I read. Specifically IGN giving it a 4. That's just ridiculous. Some of the issues that this game is being ripped for are issues that are common in Call of Duty and most other shooters who get 8-10 scores from the same publications who gave this a 4. It really isn't a fair review to say this game is bad. It may not be what you're used to, but it is far from being a bad game. I think more people should really give this game more than 5 minutes before deciding that you hate it.
    Expand
  34. 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.
  35. 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
  36. 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.
  37. 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
  38. Nov 16, 2012
    4
    You know what is a bad game? Medal of Honor: Warfighter. You want to know why it's a bad game? Of course you do! So to satisfy your desire I have made a list of the reasons this game sucks and why your money is better spent elsewhere. However, it is just a list and n explanations because frankly this game isn't even worth this amount of time. If you have any questions feel free to email me at huffn88@yahoo.com. Here we go! Terrible hit detection, screen tearing, constant clipping, poorly implemented gameplay features such as the fireteam system, tedious gunplay, awful campaign, terrible AI in said campaign, failing to have even a modicum of innovation, ridiculous bugs, and last and most certainly not least taking gamers for morons and expecting us to be okay with this. Danger Close, shut your doors and bury this series under the ground. Expand
  39. Nov 16, 2012
    6
    Medal of Honor Warfighter is a robust shooter with equally robust visuals and sound. But that's as far as praise goes. The plot is boring, with an antagonist who has no personality. The family of protagonist Preacher, are two of the ugliest looking videogame characters in ages. The campaign is full of missions where you breach doors, and kill waves upon waves of terrorists, not too well disguised by the visual palette. Criterion's hand in the driving sections expose the only saving graces to an otherwise dull and repetitive slalom down been there and done shot that avenue. At least the multiplayer is invigorating enough, as its being is mainly to add to the stockpile of multiplayer shooters on the market. Probably worth a punt for MOH veterans or for those who are bored, but this is more like a Medal of Dishonor if anything. Expand
  40. Nov 16, 2012
    6
    Frostbite 2 does a great job at the graphics but the campaign its the same story they use for almost every First Person shooter, if I was comparing this to BO2 than I'd go with this, in the end Medal of honor warfighter has good Graphics, multiplayer, a few missions so I its a decent entry in the MOH games
  41. Nov 14, 2012
    0
    PFFFT this is no game!!! they steel idees from cod. terorits? COD! guns? COD! see? i'm 12 and i can see were tey steelin idees frm lol open ur I's peepl stop bein a shep an by cod.

    Review: crap by cod or ur gay
  42. Nov 13, 2012
    0
    This game shows why you should never ever rush a game because you end up with Medal of Honor:Warfighter.A game that has so many flaws and lacks so much that if you took all of the flaws and made it into the wall it would become the world's longest wall forget the Great Wall of China.And if you took all of the game's flaws and made it into a tower you would no longer need a space ship to get into space just go to the Moh:Warfighter tower and take the elevator into space.This game is terrible,the gameplay is terrible,the controls is terrible,the graphics is terrible the entire game sucks and has way to many flaws and lacks way to much for this day and age of gaming. A game's sequel is supposed to be better than the first game not worse.The first medal of honor game was awesome don't know what EA did but they made one of the worst games I have ever played.Maybe if they released the game in 2013 instead of 2012 it might have been a good game but now we will never know.I wanted to give this game at least a 1 but that might have showed I liked this game to only rating this game deserve's is a big fat juice solid 0 Expand
  43. Nov 11, 2012
    8
    The latest instalment in the Medal of Honor franchise, "Warfighter", is nothing short of breath-taking, the campaign is fast paced, and action packed, and has some of the most impressive sets, ever seen in a FPS. The core mechanics of the game work great, as you have come to expect from the series. That said it is not flawless... The Multiplayer of the game, has a number of problems still, even after early patching. Namely teleporting out of the map, falling through the map, stats not working, Trophies / Achievements not unlocking, and a host of other problems that should have been sorted out by time the beta was finished. If your thinking of trying this game, it is worthwhile, even though a bit unfinished. Expand
  44. 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
  45. 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.
  46. Nov 6, 2012
    8
    As a military shooter junkie, MOHW is perfect for me, slip through the single player on the difficulties, then jump into the real meat: multiplayer. you have to be strategic, fire in bursts, accumilate pointstreaks wisely, communicate with your team mate. If you are into semi-realistic military action oneline and have a friend to join you, then have at it. If you're on the fence: wait for the battlechest edition for all the maps and bugs to be ironed out, it'll be cheap, high quality and content. it's a shame they fought to grab the Halo 4 and BO2 audience with an unfinished project rather than let the vast majority of the public enjoy they're rehashed sequels before offering something polished and new, especially since this will be the last MOH/BF game until the new consoles in 2014. But if MOHW has the bugs squashed, they'll be no better military fps on the playform for this console generation. Expand
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. 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 ?
  51. 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
  52. 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 ££
  53. 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
  54. Nov 4, 2012
    6
    There are moments of something that really has potential in MoH:W, 70% of the time it's the most visually impressive game I've ever played. With the Frostbite 2 engine it's an experience that mirrors realism very closely. The audio for every environments fits the situation and amazes me, also you have some good levels in the single player, and a decent multiplayer. However there are just as many strengths as weaknesses. The other 30% of the time textures are decent but it resembles that of an older 360 game. The game itself doesn't really innovate, and it's still trying to find what makes it unique in a world Dominated by Call of Duty and Battlefield. The multiplayer can be very frustrating at times. If you're a fan of the series or just a fan of military shooters then you'll no doubt appreciate it and probably have already picked it up, otherwise for everyone else it's a decent rent but passing this one by wouldn't be a bad idea either. Expand
  55. Nov 4, 2012
    7
    I feel this game is getting quite a bad and undeserved rep. I can't speak for the multiplayer, but the campaign was quite enjoyable, albeit rather short at around six hours - to which I'd be a little annoyed at if I'd paid full retail price for it, but it was a rental so i can't complain. Much like you'd expect from a modern day FPS, there's constant adrenaline-fueled action the whole way through, with a mixture of stealth missions, car chases and full on assaults to keep you on your toes. Of course, it's nothing original, but then few games today are. I do often feel it's been dumbed down a little, similar to its predecessor, with hardcore mode being the only real challenge of the game - if you can be bothered starting from the beginning of the campaign each time you die. But again, all games seem to be dumbed down since developers seem to be trying to reach a wider audience these days. Poor hit detection can also take you out of the immersive experience at times, but the game makes up for this with fantastic graphics (especially the cutscenes - wow) and a soundtrack that keeps you pumped all the way through. The story is typical American propaganda, though you still feel sucked in regardless. All in all the game wasn't great, but it was good and well worth a rent from your local blockbuster. It gets a fairly good 7 out of 10... just above average, because the mission did keep me on my toes throughout tier 1 difficulty. Expand
  56. sud
    Nov 4, 2012
    1
    good story mode,up too a point.but lacks anything new.online gameplay is a very poor.game has been developed for 10 year olds,must be the fastest game trade in i have ever done.bring on black ops 2
  57. 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
  58. Nov 2, 2012
    3
    The 2010 reboot of Medal of Honor, was a little rough around the edges. But that, didn't mean the game was terrible. In the 2010 MOH, the game stood out with amazing scenery and had a solid Single Player, and Multi-Player. This time around, it seems that Warfighter was loosely pieced together to cash in for a quick buck.

    The Single Player can be described as inconsistent both story, and
    gameplay. The storyline will have you asking "why" is this here, and might possibly have you replaying missions over and over again due to faulty bugs that this game failed to patch and fix. The game itself is broken in many parts of both online and single player. It's frustrating at times to know that developers haven't fixed this "A" level bugs that need to be addressed. Secondly, this games multiplayer does the ol'e switcheroo with you on the graphics making the game look dated and feel obsolete. The multiplayer will grow on you, but its the overall way this game feels, flows, and was designed that makes the experience feel terrible. The game overall, is bland, dry, and un-finished it feels like at times. If you're looking to get this game, wait a few months to where it drops to bargain bin price at gamestop ($10) instead of paying $60. Expand
  59. Nov 2, 2012
    9
    I think this game is aweosome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  60. 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",
  61. Nov 1, 2012
    10
    It is a pretty good game i haven't seen any bug and the mp is great fun. Maps are cool but if someoneee controlls the spawnoints it is difficult to win.
  62. Oct 31, 2012
    8
    First of all, don't listen to the negative reviews, they are either COD fan boys, BF fan boys, Halo, whatever, or just don't know what they are talking about. For instance, here is the underlying irrational-ism of the negative reviewers. Campaign is linear, hellooo, like COD and BF aren't, plus COD has trigger points, that sucks worse. Copies other games. Okay, so it takes good ideas from COD (perks), mechanics such as prone, gunsmith like GRFS, puts them together and that is bad ? Isn't bad when the other games do it, but here it is, go figure. A big plus is the peek and lean, tell me how MOH figures it out, yet bad boy COD can't (not on consoles) ? That's a major fail for the competition, for it should have been standard years ago. Campaign being too short, well, playing it on puss mode as they obviously have does make it short. COD and BF, Homefront, again, whatever, all have short campaigns, unless you play it on hardest difficulty like I do, then you won't see no 3-7 hour campaign completions the first time around. Plus, these are all made for MP, SP is not the priority here with these types of games. You want a long campaign, go play Batman or Bio Shock, or Red Dead. MP maps, eh, that's a personal preference, not a factor. Graphics, obviously they could be better, but I have a 55 inch LG with HDMI hookup, and I have no complaints, a few biffs here and there, but not due to clarity or detail problems. You want to give a game a low score, go play GRFS, and then MOH and tell me how much this game suck trying to play it,cuz GR was a bitter disappointment that promised to kill all other shooters, and majorly failed with poor connection and now, empty game rooms, you won't see that in MOH. Game play is good, it's a good in between game for COD and BF when you need a break from that, and that happens all to often because of cheap guns, cheap game play and with COD, way too many kiddies in the room. Generic, yeah, so what, it's Blue V Red, and that's what you get, plain and simple, yes, but that's what I expected, and that's what I got, so what's the big deal ? The big deal is that there are too many crybabies, and fan boys that offer irrational, diluted and biased opinions with no cognitive thought what so ever, ignore them. Like I always say, rent or buy the game, play a demo, do anything else but listen to fools bark at the moon, play it yourself, only Y-O-U can decide if it is the game for you, these people didn't like it (if they played it), that's fine, but to steer people away from it with their bellyaching is not conducive to giving a true review, it just basically amounts to just wasted space, and that's what I see here in these reviews, a lot of wasted space. Expand
  63. 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
  64. Oct 31, 2012
    8
    I have been gaming since the mid-1980's and I have never seen a game this good get reviewed so badly. The fact of the matter is that this game is really quite good. The campaign is along the lines of a Call of Duty campaign in terms of gameplay. There is a lot of door breaching, which is fine for me because you can unlock different methods of door breaching and I enjoyed using all of them. The story is fairly standard-fare for the genre with some nice looks into how their lifestyle affects their personal relationships and a particularly moving scene during the ending. If you like the campaigns in other first person shooters, you will like the campaign in this game. One thing that sets this game apart is it's lean feature which allows you to peak and shoot around corners or over objects. It is quite useful and it you're smart, you will use it frequently. The campaign isn't as difficult as other shooters so I recommend starting out on hard. I don't think most people will have a problem with it.

    The multiplayer is also quite good. There are 5 classes: sniper, assaulter, demolitions, heavy gunner, point man, and spec ops. Each of them has their own special ability and their own killstreaks. The gameplay is pretty good. The weapons are well-balanced right from the start -- unlike other FPS'. The gameplay is slower and more tactical than most other first person shooters. If you run and gun in this game, you will get your butt handed to you frequently. Use the lean system frequently. Many people will complain about various things in multiplayer and most of them amount to whining. Many people complain about the red aura and the hit detection. The red aura I am talking about is that during a "core" gametype, if you kill someone's fireteam buddy (fireteams are 2 man groups), that person will be able to see your aura through walls for a second or two. If this sounds stupid to you, just play Real Ops, which is the equivalent of "hardcore". In Real Ops, player health and bullet damage are basically the same as in other gametypes, but there is no HUD, no map, and no red aura to worry about. The hit detection complaint revolves around the issue that, from time to time, you will shoot someone and you will be killed and find out that your bullets didn't seem to do the damage you thought they would. I don't know where this problem occurs from because the hit detection in this game seems to be fine 98% of the time. Lag in the game seems to be virtually non-existent. The games are always smooth and you will rarely ever get killed around corners like you would in Battlefield 3 or Call of Duty.

    This game isn't perfect. For instance, there are some glitched achievements, but overall this game is really good and, despite what most reviews online will tell you, this game is definitely worth playing.
    Expand
  65. Oct 31, 2012
    5
    Single player is short and boring! Nothing new at all. The multiplayer is shocking! Its just not a fun game to play. They need to sort the mechanics out. I'm so sick of shooting enemies and not downing them only for them to turn around and kill me; and they have 100% health- WTF IS THAT?? The guns feels like pea shooters, far too many bullets to down enemies, AND if you find two enemies together is impossible to kill both! Shot behind walls, noob tubes and nades and constant, poor spawns, poor hit detection! overall the game's s**t and unbalanced! Read what everyone is saying! Avoid! Expand
  66. 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.
  67. 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. Expand
  68. 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
  69. 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
  70. Oct 30, 2012
    4
    The game's singleplayer was very short, not even 5 hours. The AI was very stupid and the plot wasn't thoroughly explained. I was very disappointed that we never got to play as other militaries in the singleplayer even though they kept advertising them so much for the game, a multiplayer-only thing apparently. I was hoping the multiplayer was going to be really good to make up for the mediocre singleplayer but unfortunately it comes off as copying CoD and failing. I was expecting this to be better than the re-boot, which itself wasn't that great, it ended up actually going a step back. Danger Close needs to get it together or else EA is going to make you disappear. Expand
  71. Oct 30, 2012
    10
    Amazing game, campaign is full of great action moments, the breaching is great where you chose and unlock different breaching methods, the story is fantastic too especially as it adds in the back story of their families etc, something that COD does not even look at. Insane graphics, cut scenes and also the driving missions are awesome too! Mutiplayer is good, fireteams adds a lot to the game and makes it easier to get straight back into the action aswell as good graphics and so on and so forth.
    Basically buy this game is you like action games or even action films :))
    Expand
  72. 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
  73. 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.
    Expand
  74. Oct 30, 2012
    9
    I have only played multiplayer, as that is all I care about.

    GRAPHICS: Quality is improved from MOH2010. The real difference is the increase in contrast and strong colors that really pop out.
    MAPS: Map design is very creative and unique. Some levels are a little dark, but overall positive. Downside, some maps should allow for more players. What made MOHAA epic was that the maps made
    the player feel like they were in an actual war zone.
    USER INTERFACE: Clunky. Aesthetically, it was simple but merits no complaints. Layout/design, it is frustrating to easily find the information you want. Example: Figuring out how far away you are from unlocking a scope is not clear and obvious. You have to hunt for it, and even when you find it, the progress bar has no clear end. It's the edge of the screen? There needs to be a sense of urgency.
    WEAPONS: Weapon choice and customization is great! Again, the unlocking structure needs to be revamped. Lot's of ways to paint your weapon, customize load-outs, etc.
    GAMEPLAY: Controls are almost identical to the last MOH. It does feel quite a bit like BF3 when running and shooting - this can be a positive or negative.
    Expand
  75. Oct 30, 2012
    4
    Typical American game where all are bad except the Americans. Well, beyond the story, the game repeats the same recipe that Battlefield 3 but in decline: history short and poor, poor multiplayer and too many bug. It is also too generic and stereotypical. Disappointing.
  76. Oct 29, 2012
    8
    So far I've loved playing this game! The MP mode takes a little getting used to - like most new titles - but once I learned the maps and tactical play requirement, I started loving it! It's not a "run and gun" fps. Working closely with your buddy as part of a two - player fire team is crucial to dominating, which is something I like. I think this element leads to game play that's more realistic than most fps games. If I have one criticism, it's destruction. As a Battlefield 3 player with over 500 hours on MP, I had high expectations for the graphics and destruction since MoH:WF uses Frostbite 2 graphics engine. Overall, MoH:WF delivers, but Battlefield 3 outdoes it in one category: environment destruction. Granted, MoH:WF is good in this category, but it's not at the same level as BF3.
    The game is geared toward MP mode as the campaign is fairly short - a lot like Modern Warfare 2 (about 6 or 7 hours). The SP mode is still very good and is a "must play"! Players learn to use the different MP mode weapons and tactics. As you achieve rank in MP, you unlock a new soldier and all their gun camos, weapons, scopes, etc. (There are 72 soldiers total.) This makes for dynamic fire team play! Ranking up is much like Battlefield 3: lower scores to rank up initially, with more points needed as you advance. Before you know it, you have a soldier with a weapon and play style that suits you.
    I also like the response time from EA/ Danger Close to community bug reports. Initially, one map was plagued with a "spawn in under the map" bug (Somalia map), which is already fixed along with several other community - reported bugs. Great customer service, in my opinion! These fixes have made MP even more enjoyable.
    Here are some "bare bones" scores:
    SP campaign - 7.5. The campaign is a little short - 6 - 7 hours - for a major title. However, it sets up MP mode, has a character driven story, and is action packed with vehicle & boat sections, some intense firefights (especially on harder settings), and lots of weapons and "other military equipment" to use.
    Graphics - 7.0. MoH:WF could make better use of the Frostbite 2 engine like BF3. Instead of Battlefield - like destruction, that's traded for richly detailed environments and explosive sounds. Rainy, night time sections of SP campaign are very realistic!
    MP Mode - 8.5. Once players learn the maps and play tactically, the game comes alive! The fire team system makes coordinating tactical movements (like flanking, covering an alley or objective, or suppressing enemies) easier than the 4 - player BF3 squads. EA/ Danger Close have responded quickly to bug reports with game improving patches. The variety of MP modes (5 or 6) make it a game with something for everyone.
    Overall appeal - 9.0. MoH is a well known series. It delivers on its promise to provide a "varied multiplayer experience" and "realistic action". It challenges players to adapt run and gun play styles to more strategic, tactical game play (in SP and MP modes). Graphics and sound are both excellent. A creative and realistic story gives players a taste of life from a Tier 1 military operator's pov, definitely exciting. Immersive SP environments help draw players into their world.
    Overall rating - 8.0. My averaged scores (above) give MoH:WF an 8.0. I think that this score will rise providing EA/ Danger Close continue responding promptly to community bug and glitch reports. (The same thing that happened to bf3 when it was released.)
    Expand
  77. Oct 29, 2012
    2
    One of the worst shooters I have ever played. Two major flaws in the beginning of the game that made me turn it off and take it back for a refund:
    1. Walking anywhere even remotely in the wrong direction makes the game tell you that you have about 2 seconds to return to the game area which isn't even enough time so always ends with a restart from the last checkpoint.
    2. Absolutely
    terrible sniping sections, does the wind direction affect the trajectory of the bullets? As sniping an enemy square in the face, chest or stomach does absolutely nothing, as does shooting him anywhere to the left or right unless by sheer look he drops down dead.
    Awful game, even makes generic garbage like Call of Duty look good.
    Expand
  78. Oct 29, 2012
    9
    Had to post after reading widespread panning by critics. The game is good, but in dire need of some patching. the gameplay is a good balance between the arcade style of CoD and the realism of BF3 with a truly unique multiplayer setup.
  79. 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
  80. Oct 28, 2012
    10
    First off I'd like to say this game is awesome despite the bad reviews ign and g4 gave it. Most people now a days play games for there online multiplayer and that's just what this game is. This games multiplayer offers some challenge and strategy unlike Call of Duty. If your a battlefield fan then you'll love it. The buddy system is a great addition to this game and it makes it an all around great game. This game was a huge step up from the first one and if you expect to win a game then you have to be a team-player and know how to support your team. This game is one of the best war games I've played in a long time and I highly recommend it. Other games that I play that might help you with knowing what my type of good war games is is Battlefield 3 Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare 2 Battlefield Company 1&2 and Battlefield 1943. Hopefully I was able to persuade you to buy so go get it and I'll see you on the battlefield. Expand
  81. Oct 28, 2012
    7
    Medal of Honor is a Modern FPS shooter, which hasn't got the recognition it deserves, the game itself is rather fun and addictive, I've had a lot of people who were weary to get this due to two main reasons, it's shipped with BF4 Beta code and for the Pc users it was discounted for those who had BF3 Premium, and that points to some people that the same isn't going to be up to its full standard. Ignore that guys, this game is a great fun shooter which should not be missed. The graphics are outstanding using Dice's Frostbite 2, the only downfall is having to install the HD content pack much like BF3, I'd have to rate the graphics an 8/10 due to it can have certain times where the faces seem grainy n the cut scenes (noticed this problem with the other Frostbite 2 game also)
    Audio, the audio is pretty well nailed down in my opinion, I couldn't fault it but it lacks those blockbuster voice actors which would give it an edge against other games so it'll be a 7/10.
    Gameplay: The campaign is somewhat short lived and will take the average player 5-6 hours to do the campaign, but most of the people who buy this game will be looking at the MP side too, I got to say the multiplayer is pretty addictive and fun,a mixture of CoD and Battlefield with no vehicles being on hand at the beginning but with killstreaks like CoD (you get a choice of two between each score limit reached in a life) but with the issues of server lag, I do not know if it was just my connection or the server but I quite often saw people jumping across the screen. So i'd give the Single Player a 6/10 for a short lived fun SP, and the multiplayer for the amount of customization that can goes into the guns and such, the gameplay is unique and is best with a team which will make it a 7/10.
    Controls/Playability: As you can expect with any modern day shooter the controls are pretty much the same simple to use, very easy to pick up and play. 9/10

    Overall: I'd say overall the game is good, but it's not the best game I've played but not the worse either, If you're a fan of the MoH games i'd say pick it up it definitely has a MoH feel to it and you shall not be disappointing, as for the others who are wanting to get this game or not, I'd say honestly wait till the price comes down a bit, maybe to £25/ $40.
    Expand
  82. Oct 28, 2012
    4
    It just seems like another run of the mill shooter. There is nothing to special about it. Graphics are ok but gameplay is a little off. The game modes almost promote hiding in a corner and you cant even climb up on most of the environment like rocks etc.. Very arcade like.
  83. Oct 28, 2012
    8
    I've honestly been very surprised with this game, despite some bugs during launch such as graphical errors, glitches, etc - they've mostly been patched. While many say that this game is very bland and like "every other FPS" , I'll have to disagree. This decision is due to a few things. One being the "warfighter system" they've put into multiplayer. Since when in either CoD or BF3 could you change the nationality of your characters? I found that to be very nice since it allowed me to not be "Team 1" but rather selecting one of twelve tier one operating groups ranging from the British SAS and Polish GROM to the South Korean ROKN. The second reason I enjoyed this game was the customization. With the twelve groups and six classes - That gives you 72 combo's (not counting weapons and weapon customization). The gun modeling is also superb and firing them in-game gives a nice feel and recoil that is noticeably absent in most shooters and it adds a nice touch by putting signature camo's and scopes into the game (One being a nice optical sniper scope that has built in iron sights attached to it). The classes are varied by far which I enjoy, despite not having the option to change your secondary weapon and a few weapons are a bit un-balanaced (however by changing the effective range of your weapons you can counter the issue by either having superior range or a better CQB loadout). Yet this game is not with it flaws. One game mode - Sector control (Domination) has some difficulties do to some maps that make spawn camping somewhat easy, as well as some bad spawns (I've had the occasion where I'm at our spawn and an enemy will spawn in front of me, although this has been very rare for the time I've played). Overall, I wish people gave this game a little bit more credit for what it's trying to do - It doesn't feel like the strongest of FPS's but it definitely has some unique factors and a nice graphically designed multiplayer that is very enjoyable. PS: If you are planning on getting this - it's very important you have someone to play it with. Expand
  84. Oct 28, 2012
    8
    I really don't understand how other people rate first person shooters anymore. What makes a new game creative or generic? I seem to have different tastes then the mass media corporate review websites such as FOX-IGN and CBS-Gamespot. I seem to like different things from the vast majority of players.

    With that said I enjoy MOH Warfighter. I log on with my friend who I have been playing
    FPS games with for 3 years now. We have a game where we can spawn on each other and back each other up like we can in Battlefield 3. We have a game where we can earn killstreaks like in Call of Duty. This game kind of takes the best idea from multiple genres and blends them. I guess I enjoy the blend. Expand
  85. Oct 28, 2012
    9
    MOH Warfighter is a nice shooter with good graphics and lots of customisations that can make the game experience cooler every time with a nu configuration of customisations but it doesent have a good story like bf3 of cod mw3 and that ruins a little bit the game experience because you found yourself playing one day and you ask yourself why do y need to fight with the other team? i dont really have a reson ( like ww3 or russian vs american war ) Expand
  86. Oct 27, 2012
    7
    Medal of Honor: Warfighter is a game that has limited appeal. I personally enjoy it, but I guarantee not everyone will. The campaign will likely please less. That is because the campaign is such a jumble of events that have almost no relationship to each other until the end... where the "not inspired from actual events" missions appear. The idea of playing real life events looked good on paper, but they didn't flow the story together very well... if you were to play this, I guarantee you won't have any idea what is going on during your first playthrough AT LEAST. What's more? The game does suffer from glitches in the SP and MP sections, even after the patch, be prepared for some crazy nonsense. Graphically... the game looks good for the most part, and the gameplay feels solid in the SP and MP modes. Multiplayer by the way is... its own thing. It is a two-man team tactical multiplayer, meaning that success lies in how well you do with your fireteam buddy. Finding a match at first can be confusing because the menus are clunky... it took me 15 minutes to make sense of it. Once I was in with a partner, I found that the gameplay itself was quite addicting, but like I mentioned earlier, it has limited appeal. Some of you will love the hell out of the team tactical gameplay, some of you will curse it until the day you die. To most gamers... MOH will feel like a midpoint between Battlefield 3's vehicle and large map gameplay and Call of Duty's infantry close quarters gameplay with killstreaks. There are 5 main modes, each of them unique... but not unique when considering the entire FPS genre. However, it can still be fun... it just has to be for you, and it helps if you have friends that play as well. If you don't have friends that are willing to play with you that you can work with, then your experience with MoH:W will likely be unimpressive. I can tell you that the difference between playing with a friend vs playing alone or with a random is like apples and oranges... they are not the same experience. ///// So... my lasting advice to you is... ONLY get this game if you truly and honestly believe that team tactical gameplay is for you... and you are willing to let a number of glitches slide in the early going. ///// Expand
  87. 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
  88. Oct 27, 2012
    9
    Multiplayer is solid and very fun. The buddy system is the best thing ever invented for teamplay, gives a unique style. The campaign has several real missions, one example is the rescue of Captain Richard Phillips in 2009. Some may find it hard to play more tactically, but once learned is fantastic.
  89. Oct 27, 2012
    1
    I have only one question to EA/Dice, why Frostbite, a such hyped up graphics engine can't get basic things right? Such as proper rendering of colors.

    In BF3 is all dull blue, brown, and grey, in this game its still blue, brown and grey. They are repulsive to me on the first impressions, that actual products fail to meet up the marketing hype-ups.

    If you compare with Crysis,
    Uncharted, those games are know for their graphics and indeed their presentations are lush, vivid, full of life. Even late COD games look more lively than this so called frostbite games.

    EA should stop this "we are gonna end Call of Duty by making a hell of clones out of it" marketing bs, instead, they need to raise the quality of their games, VASTLY.
    Expand
  90. Oct 27, 2012
    10
    I can't comprehend why anyone wouldn't like Medal of Honor Warfighter I haven't played campaign but regardless if campaign is absolutely terrible this game still deserves a 10.0 I have not experiences any lag in this game it is a pick up and play type of game and once you get into it you will realize the multiplayer is great and there are no broken classes or killstreaks except for people think ballistic armor and signal armor are overpowered however i would say they aren't i don't use them but i barely get killed by them and still end up going at least 20-10 in tdm so with that said i would say there are no overpowered things and the bullet ballistics are great and the game may even be to realistic for some if I had to rate the game I would say Multiplay 10 Gameplay 9 Sound 10 Graphics 9 Servers 10 Innovation 8 Realism 9.5 Customization 9 Campaign N/A Now those would be my ratings I understand that they don't let you create classes but they have more guns then any Call of Duty and more attachments and Paint Jobs also with that said they have different people you can choose from to be I love what they did with the fireteam and the in game platoons was a great idea there are five game modes with the additional option of hardcore for every mode and 8 maps which they have already announced more they have 20 people to a server in everything but home run still without lag and and you can customize your classes midgame so for someone who likes multiplayer and really nothing else I would highly recommend this game and i would say this games overall rating is a 10 thanks for your time Expand
  91. Oct 27, 2012
    1
    I could care less about the singleplayer which is always pointless in these things but the multi's awful as well. Maps are downright amateurish with lots of invisible walls, no destruction, somehow can't jump on diddly, no bullet penetration. Outdoor settings are made of 'blobs' of rock that serve to make claustrophobic corridors and the visuals are total pants, makes Frostbite 2 look like Unreal 3 check out i.imgur.comcW8OM.jpg Expand
  92. Oct 27, 2012
    10
    What most gamers seem to forget is the true purpose of gaming. We play these games to have a good time, to enjoy ourselves. What this game offers in both the single player and multiplayer is enough to keep me satisfied and to make me happy that I spent £40 on it. Medal of Honor Warfighter has an amazingly fast-paced campaign, filled with drama and suspense. It has its technical bugs but most games do nowadays. The multiplayer is fun, there is loads of customization options and the general gameplay offers the same entertainment as any other successful first person shooter out there. It's fast paced, requires the use of tactics, battle buddies are vital to your victory and doesn't give anyone an unfair advantage over the other players. I gave this game a rating of 10/10 even though I've ignored the minor glitches because this game deserves a 10/10, its a must-buy! Expand
  93. Oct 27, 2012
    10
    First of all. This does not feel like a finished product, the single player campaing is too short and goes on tracks. BUT the MP has a huge amount of potential. If just DG would give a new patch to repair the remaing bugs this would be my FPS to go. Im giving it a 10 just be course there is a lot of negativity towards it. Normally I would give it a 8.
  94. Oct 27, 2012
    9
    Fantastic game. It's not COD and you can't run around like a chicken with his head cut off, which is what I believe most people find disagreeable with the game. Firstly, basing this MOH of the previous MOH is a bad idea. The majority of reviewers and players already made up their mind about this game long before it was even released by simply remembering how much they loathed the 2010 version. I urge people not to do that. Everything terrible in that game has been removed here. The vast variety of weapons and characters is simply amazing; the ease of playing with friends is top of the line. Even if I'm not in the same fireteam as my friends I am on the same side, which is something many of the larger title games need to look at. Does it have issues? Of course. Find me a single game that doesn't at launch and I'll eat my own hat. But in my honest opinion the great things in this game far outweigh the bad. Keep your head up, don't get tunnel vision, and please oh please, don't play it like COD; if you do, you'll end up dying alot and then come here and write a terrible review telling people how horrible the hit detection is, how overpowered the guns are and how you can't believe EA would publish such garbage. Expand
  95. Oct 27, 2012
    1
    Well... The menus are a nightmare, they look good but they are ridiculous to navigate. The story is really forgettable, nothing really stands out. Online Multiplayer is where most shooters make their mark. This one seemed to build up a lot of hype because it implemented Frostbite 2.0 Engine. But it failed to even get the simplest of fundamentals correct. So yeah. I told you Rookie.
  96. Oct 27, 2012
    8
    Medal of Honor: Warfighter is a fun, enjoyable, and unique game. I'm sure most peop,e might read the first sentence of this review and say 'Unique? It's a military shooter! What's unique about it?'. And they have a point. The campaign is the usual mission filled, Mr. Amazing Soldier, and riddled with explosions story we all know. But that's why this review gives the game an 8. The multiplayer, however, is a well-balanced mix of the team based MP of Battlefield 3 and the Go it Alone, You'll be Fine MP of Call of Duty. You and another player are a fireteam of 2, working together to complete objectives and rack up kills. I'm very fond of this approach because you don't have to follow around 5 other players to win, but you aren't completely alone either. The customization is impressive too, and it's fun to experiment with all sorts of different combos. The game does have it's glitches and bugs, and it is still a military shooter, but it's a bit of a breath of fresh air. Obviously this game hasn't gotten ther best reviews, so i highly suggest watching some videos of gameplay.The End. Expand
  97. Oct 27, 2012
    10
    This I found to be a spectacular game I could not believe the assortment of characters in it. I was a Gingerbread man running around weilding a ray gun blasting my way through a bunch of fishbowl headed men. My personal favorite character was the man pretending to be a robot with a cardboard box on his head. The story was very intense they used extreme creativity when they explain time and paradoxes. The game had my heart racing and I couldnt keep up with the intense action of grabbing the case and running it to the extraction point. I would highly recommend this game to anyone who loves the Medal of Honor series. Expand
  98. Oct 27, 2012
    8
    The Singleplayer's are all short nowadays because the consoles need some serious upgrades. I think once the new consoles come out, the campaigns will likely get longer, and we will likely end up with more disc's per game. The multiplayer is buggy sometimes, but head shots make the difference. Train yourself to get those headshots, suddenly multiplayer is a lot easier. Choke points are an issue? Welcome to realism, time for those frags and proximity mines and other techniques.

    Obvious bugs, and occasional disconnects...but that has become the standard I am afraid.
    Expand
  99. Oct 27, 2012
    9
    We here at GaminGuys.com are typical Xbox 360 users primarily, and MOH Warfighter goes against the grain from most FPS's we come across. If EA were to make one game better than Battlefield 3, it should be this game.

    We think that the second you put a game against the C.O.D series you are doomed to fail in a big way, which is why the MOH trilogy is so exciting. It doesn't actually stand
    against any other game, it's the best of Battlefield running it's own course, the black sheep of FPS if you will.

    We are hooked on every release of this game and the fact it's the rebel of the EA family, gives us cause to play it. We love everything about this game even the slightly glitchy movements of the character on campaign. It's Medal Of Honor People. Come on!
    Expand
  100. Oct 27, 2012
    5
    MOH warfighter is another generic FPS in the market. You will find so many games like MOH, that spending 60 dollars here it's a waste of money. Everything that MOH tries to achieve, fails so badly, that's even hard to find some good thing here. The plot is mediocre, campaign is too damn short, the characters feel dull and stupid, multiplayer maps are short and lack originality. It looks like EA said 'Lets do our own Call of Duty' and they even failed on that. Yes, the Frostbite engine it's beautiful, but we've seen it working properly at Battlefield 3, we don't need another example. At the end, MOH:Warfighter looks like an EA gimmick to vanish 60 dollars from your wallet. Stick to Call of Duty or Battlefield, wait for Black Ops 2 or Halo, but stay away from this new Medal of Honor Expand
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]