User Score
5.4

Mixed or average reviews- based on 409 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Oct 25, 2012
    3
    The trend of dissapointing releases continues this year. Medal of Honor Warfighter is another rushed release relying on heavy advertising and enough 13-year-olds to thrive. As a game, it's pretty bad. Graphics are terrible, controls are clunky, multiplayer does nothing new. Seems very boring and repetitive. Class system seems so screwed, you can't even use iron sights when you start. Every scope and iron sight looks terrible, weapons are terrible. Doesn't seem satisfying. Probably isn't balanced. Yet another shooter to cater for those who love throwing money away for a couple of hours of gameplay before they go back to BF3. Expand
  2. 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
  3. Oct 26, 2012
    1
    This game is the definition of a bad shooter. Battlefield worked for Frostbyte 2, but this game sucks. 4 Discs for the 360 makes me want a PS3, a corrupt campaign, choppy multiplayer, overall, bad game.
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. Oct 24, 2012
    2
    How far this game has fallen. Garbage, if I want to play Cod i'll buy that crap too. Poorly built maps, guns with no accuracy or damage id, and the worst spawns in gaming make this a definite trade in.
  14. Oct 24, 2012
    3
    Firstly can Meta-critic implement a system where users can only post a review from the third day of release please, as there are no professional reviewers writing here who may have got the review code early to review it in depth. As anyone who would have got this early would have seen this game is a bug ridden mess, apparently a patch has been released today but why release a game BEFORE IT IS READY EA! This is the second pile of dog crap EA have churned out recently, with Fifa 13 being another bug ridden sweaty filled mess! This game though from what I could see has absolutely no identity to itself, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. The bad thing is the set pieces and story are complete tosh, the typical America saves the world mantra is so tiresome yet developers have to continue their brainwashing the masses drive. Multiplayer has a lot of potential as the guns feel accurate, yet the bugs and the small bland environments is enough to warranty a three score as the game currently stands now. Expand
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Oct 24, 2012
    0
    It's unbelievable to me that a company as big as EA Games could release this game with a straight face. This game looks good but, as other reviewers have said, is full of eye-rolling propaganda and the gameplay is derivitive, generic and completely unnecessary. Total dogsh*t.
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Oct 26, 2012
    4
    I've only played this game for 5 hours or so but after seeing the comments CappyBlack, I though I'd add my review. I'm 40 years old and I've been playing games since Manic Miner in 1982. This is one of the worst games I've ever played. It has good graphics and the MP has some good ideas but it's soooo boring.
    The campaign, which I played for 2 hours before feeling dirty and used by EA, is
    like being dragged around the shops by the Mrs at Xmas. It is that BAD. So I fired up the MP to see if that could redeem the game. Nope, nothing new. The graphics take a dip in quality and please oh please don't get me started on spawn killing. Why couldn't the developers incorporate a random spawn point when the enemy are camped? The guns feel like I'm firing a repeating pea shooter, the perks are unbalanced and the maps are smaller than the inside of Richard Hammonds sock drawer. With so many good games coming up, COD, Halo 4 even Forza & Most Wanted, EA has dropped the grenade on this one. My advice, save your money, this really is not a very good game. Expand
  22. 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
  23. Oct 23, 2012
    3
    This game is sooo generic, my god! Nothing new here 6 hours campaign, hand holding game telling you what to do, who to kil, where to go, extreme linearity, regenerating health if you are lookin for something creative, original dont look at this game.
  24. 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
  25. Oct 24, 2012
    10
    Single Player is amazing and always and still better than COD! All of the COD Fanboys need to stop giving this game bad reviews. This was amazing Graphics & Sound effects brought to us by Frostbite 2. This was the first time playing a FPS and saying Holy Crap; this is intense. Pick this up and give it a try. Also, Multiplayer is very fun and I can see myself playing it long after I beat the campaign. Expand
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. Oct 24, 2012
    9
    I have to start by saying I'm not really understanding what all of the complaints are about. I played through the game beginning to end and and played over three hours of multiplayer and found only one problem. I found the story hard to follow due to the jumping around from week to week and I felt it would have been better for it to be day to day but hey, Can't beg I didn't make it. On the complimentary side I was very impressed with the vehicle missions and the stability and realism of the driving. The multiplayer I found flawless with the various gamemodes like hotspot, real ops, and home run along with the amazing weapon customization. Really fantastic game. Looking forward to DLC and even a sequel! Expand
  29. Oct 23, 2012
    9
    Medal of honor warfighter may seem like another generic shooter in an all too crowded fps market these days but, after playing through the game I am very pleased. The campaign for medal of honor 2010 was decent but, the lackluster multiplayer left me wanting something more. With medal of honor warfighter developer danger close has given me one of the best medal of honors to date. The campaign for MOHW is short but, the story is much more realistic and heartfelt than any military shooter I have ever played. The shooting and gun mechanics are great and really give the guns weight, power, and a realistic feel. Many of the characters from MOH 2010 return for the sequel and you get to know those soldiers a lot better. Many of the missions have some awesome set piece moments and although the campaign is short, it feels just right. The multiplayer this time around was handled in house by developer danger close, instead of dice. The multiplayer is awesome and allows you to customize pretty much anything you can think of on your gun. The weighty shooting feeling is also in multiplayer and guns have recoil and some even overheat. All the character classes feel balanced and I like all the maps except maybe one. I can see myself playing this game a year from now there is so much to unlock and tweak in the multiplayer. If your looking for a more heartfelt, realistic military shooter that also has great multiplayer look no further than Medal of Honor Warfighter. I just want to add that Danger Close did a great job on this game and truly listened to fan feedback. Expand
  30. 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
  31. Mar 7, 2013
    4
    Not much to say really...Medal of Honor: Warfighter is a pretty but buggy, frustrating and tedious experience. Graphics: 8.5/10 Gameplay: 4/10 Features: 4/10 Ignore this game...AND it's predecessor if you haven't played it already, I guarantee you won't be missing much. It probably doesn't need recommendation but FPS fans should look towards the much greener pastures of Call of Duty. Expand
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. Oct 24, 2012
    0
    Well the last MoH was a travesty and this follows suit. Frostbite 2 looks stunning and the audio is crisp, but it's very unfortunate that Danger Close does not seem to be a Tier 1 studio taking full advantage of an excellent engine. More like a Tier 3 or 4 studio hacking together something that tries to emulate Call of Duty (which is not really understandable as that franchise has gone stale as well). The single player story simply can't be followed. it's all over the place when it does not have to be. There is no need for all the different locations at all, other than for the devs to show of that they can have them. Too many characters that the player has to identify with. Its horrid.
    The only redeeming fact is that it delivers and ok gun experience. Well that and the fact that you only have to sit through around 6 hours of the game. The multiplayer is not up to DICE standards. The maps are ok, but the UI is designed by an amateur - too much information popping up left right and centre, distracting from the whats really important. Some interesting modes, but nothing that really drives the genre forward. Considering that this will probably not sell very well, and there will be a lot of used copies on the market, i would not expect the multiplayer to be as well populated as BF3 or CoD either. If you are truely despeate for a shooter right now, and you can't be bothered with Black Ops 2 (like me) - then it might be worth picking up. But probably better to play XCOM or Dishonored until the price drop for this game arrives - my guess: 3 to 4 weeks.
    Expand
  35. Oct 24, 2012
    7
    I'm only commenting about the Single Player Campaign here . . .
    I liked MOH 2010 quite a bit and played the single player campaign over more than a few times. It was action packed and fun . . . I'm not as thrilled so far with MOH Warfighter and I'm probably halfway or more through the sp campaign. Several reasons: Too many "timed" challenges (long chases in cars, on foot, in boats,
    cat-n-mouse car chases too), a really frustrating "sniping" part where you have to shoot over your targets to allow for distance-bullet drop . . . just seems they minimized great FPS action in favor of multi-varietal tasks. Story and characters: are a little confusing . . .combined with lots of cut scenes and at times uninspired voice acting makes it all kind of run together and borderlines on boring, and guns...? Guns: whoa baby! aiming is loose, lots of recoil, and that's why the hit detection, which is actually pretty acurate, seems unforgiving. Reloading is slow and getting ammo is a pain when you have to chase your AI squadmate all over the place to get ammo out of his butt (it seems). Ammo runs out fast and trying to get ammo during a firefight can get you killed real easily. Graphics are nice close-up and medium range, and a bit washy for further distances. Sound fx are good, occasionally too much reverb on voices . . . So . . . so far . . . all in all could be better if they would have concentrated more on FPS firefight action and less on "007" car, boat ,foot chases, breaching doors, and cut-scenes. SP campaign deserves a 7 in my book. Maybe by the time I finish it I may want to "up" that some but not so far. Expand
  36. 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.
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. Oct 23, 2012
    8
    The people writing these "reviews" really need to grow up. They also need to actually play the game. No one who actually put down the cash for this would so quickly go against it in such a way, nor would they be attacking it for being "just another military shooter". The people who bought this game knew exactly what they were getting. It's not like they brought it home expecting an rpg. It seems the user reviews section of this site has devolved to little more than a message board for the young and ignorant. Used for little more than to try and devalue anything that someone doesn't like. Really, it's pathetic. Despite what you may think, your opinions in a lowly user review really has no impact on how the game is going to do, nor what the popular opinion of the game is. Especially when they are used for little more than a display of your ignorance concerning the product itself. Here's how it goes. This is a modern military shooter. No more, no less. If that's something you have enjoyed in the past, then chances are you will enjoy this. The beta, for those who played it, is a good indication of what you should expect from multiplayer, being that the game would have changed little from the beta release to now. I have yet to delve much into the multiplayer, so I can't fairly critique it as a whole. That said, the gunplay is solid, with weighty weapon feel and the hit detection seems largely on-point. The game does enough different to set it apart from the other modern military shooters on the market,creating it's own identity and more than justifying it's spot on store shelves. It's also worth a mention that the game, much like Battlefield 3, offers a texture pack, which will improve the overall graphical fidelity of the game, being that that was much of an issue for people during the beta. As for the singleplayer, as from what I have experienced so far, the game holds up to what was on offer in Medal of Honor 2010. That is to say, it's one of the better stories to be found in this type of game. Don't expect, in any way, grandiose storytelling , but there seems to be a cast of fairly likeable characters and the missions thus far were thoroughly enjoyable. That said, I wouldn't expect much more than the five to six hours that is usually the norm for games such as this. Overall, this is a thoroughly enjoyable game. While it won't sway the opinion of those who actively appose the genre as a whole, people who take to these sort of games shouldn't leave disappointed. While in no way groundbreaking, this game has a lot going for it. Expand
  40. Oct 23, 2012
    9
    The singleplayer of this game is truly something of note. Warfighter, much like Medal of Honor 2010, is very much a character-driven story, touching on more than just the "Oorah" aspects of military life. As of about two hours into the campaign the game so far has been, indefinitely, the greatest campaign I've experience in a military shooter so far and displays a fair amount or range when it comes to mission variety. The gunplay is very, very weighty. Some of the most satisfying shooting I've experienced in a long while, at least as far as the more realistic shooters go, which is certainly what I would call this. Not to the point of true simulators, mind you, but it does ground itself to a much larger extent than you normally see in today's modern shooters. Anyway, I truly enjoy this game. While I was a bit hesitant when picking it up, mostly due to negative comments, I am happy with the purchase. I can't yet say whether or not the multiplayer holds up. I was pretty happy with what I saw from the beta, but that was just a small taste of what the game has to offer. With little knowledge as far as that goes, it wouldn't be fair for me to give any real comment on that element of the game. Expand
  41. Oct 24, 2012
    7
    Ok my previous score was a 9, but I made the mistake of reviewing the game too early. After having have played the game for 10+ hours I now see some of the flaws more clearly. The game does look great but it will often have texture loading problems as well as weird animations by the enemies. While there not exactly game breaking the glitches sometimes can be frustrating and annoying. Overall after playing the multiplayer for roughly 4 hours it begs a question of what is really new here. The fire team system is unique and can be enjoyable, but the multiplayer just isn't as good as other games. Some of the maps seemed awkwardly designed and they led to a lot of spawn camping. Now spawn camping can happen in any game but the spawns in this game are in a small area and it can sometimes be hard to get out. Overall it is just an okay game. There are times when I have a lot of fun with the multiplayer but then other times it is boring and uninspired. This game does not deserve the 3's and below its getting because its better than that. I would say wait till this game is cheaper then purchase it, because its still a good game but it just feels all to familiar. Expand
  42. 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
  43. Oct 24, 2012
    9
    Let me say, I was one of the few people that enjoyed MOH 2010, I played the multiplayer a lot which seemed liked DICE's B-team developed (tried to ignore all the bugs and just enjoy it), but the singleplayer story was what shined the most for me in that game. Unlike games like BF3 and BFBC2 where the stories hold nothing to the multiplayer, I think the campaign definitely outshines the multiplayer in this title as well. If you enjoy a singleplayer that makes your character look more like a Bruce Willis in Die Hard, then stick with Call of Duty. This is a little more about the characters and the heart rather than walk-through-every-battle-a-super-hero. Nothing against COD, just not my cup of tea (except for you, precious COD 4). As for the MP, I think it's definitely an improvement over the last MOH, but it still can't hold a torch to games like Battlefield 3. Of course, it feels similar to BF3 in the gun handling, graphics, sound and lighting because of Frostbite 2.0, but, it's still different enough to not totally feel like the red headed step child of BF3. I say ignore some of the press reviews, most of those guys are cynical in their reviews and gave MOH 2010 a better review than this one which was definitely the inferior title of the two. I think this is a really great game, especially the campaign. I would give it a shot. Graphics - 9.0 (Cutscenes 10! Think Mass Effect type graphics)
    Sound - 9.0 Campaign - 9.0
    Multiplayer - 7.5
    Replay Value - 8.0
    Expand
  44. 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
  45. Oct 24, 2012
    3
    EA drops the ball AGAIN! The single-player campaign is good, but the graphics are a joke. Battlefield 3 had better graphics. Heck, even Max Payne 3 had better multiplayer graphics.
  46. 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
  47. 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.
  48. 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.
  49. Oct 24, 2012
    1
    I wish only people who actually bought the game could review this, because most would say it is terrible. There is a reason EA handcuffed reviewers with a day one update, the game is actually worse than the 2010 MOH. It continues to try and be Call of Duty, contains a pathetic 3 hour campaign, and has multiplayer that won't even dent Battlefield 3. Keep playing BF3, or wait for Black Ops 2, when a game tries to be something else you might as well play that something else. Expand
  50. 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
  51. Oct 24, 2012
    6
    Presentation - 3.5 - A complete U turn from the first game. Nonsensical timelines and UI. Its Hopeless with zero personalty. Design 5.5 - Overall clumsy, but a few neat touches such no swappable default weapons. Gameplay - 7.5 - Generic as they come. Vehicle sections deserve merit. Graphics - 9.0 - Frostbite sure is pretty.
    Audio - 8.5 - Good voice cast and sound effects but music is
    very underdeveloped. Lasting Appeal - 5.0 - The most generic modern war game since the mid 2000's. Multiplayer - 5.0 - Nothing to see here. Just stick with Battlefield 3 or wait for Black Ops 2. Overall - 6.0 - My main gripe with the campaign is that it is lifeless, apart from the odd set pieces here or there. But these set pieces never reach the intensity of Call of Duty games because they are not in game, they are scripted as over very quickly, usually just before the end of the level. Expand
  52. 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
  53. 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
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. Oct 25, 2012
    0
    Total garbage and a waste of money. This is just as bad as the first one which was over-hyped to be better than COD/BF but was a huge disappointment. Save your money and buy yourself a new shirt instead of wasting it on this rubbish.
  57. Oct 25, 2012
    5
    In the end, more of the same as MoH 2010 and recent Call of Duty games. Scripted madness, shoot shoot shoot, bland character and bad voice acting. Graphics are great but a bit unpolished and the multiplayer is lacking with bad map design and feeling like more of the same once again...
  58. Oct 26, 2012
    9
    This review is for multiplayer only because I feel like that's all any one cares about anymore. This simple and logical fact that people only care about MP can be seen as proof in the amount of work that went into it to make it distinct, fun, and it does have some original ideas. I love love love the buddy system because everyone in the Army knows you don't go anywhere or do anything without your "Battle Buddy" from basic training all the way to the sandbox. The game has a awesome amount of upgrades and the menus can be confusing at first but after you spend some time in there you will figure it out I promise! Also, the weapons feel so heavy and brutal and very responsive. I have really enjoyed the MP very much and I truly believe that the harsh reviews are unfair and in my experience I haven't had any bugs or glitches and I have been playing for two days now and love it. It is indeed a blend of COD and B3 with its own identity mixed in and to tell you the truth I don't understand why that's a bad thing!?!? It is another modern shooter and yes it is similar to other genre shooters but the gameplay alone and the responsiveness of the weapons alone make this game worth your time. I paid $60 for it and I don't regret it at all, and I'm not one of these trolls that have to justify my spending of $60 because I have a decent job and the money isn't the issue and I don't think we are being fair to MOH when we say it's a cookie cutter FPS because they all are nowadays. I feel what makes this game stand on its own foundation (besides the gorgeous graphics and fun MP and sweet sound effects) is that it has extremely well polished maneuverability in the MP and the buddy system makes it so much fun to work as a team similar to B3 but without the tanks, choppers and jets. It has that "close up" feel like COD but has the team based squad play like B3 which prevents camping and lone wolfs and THAT ALONE makes it worth every penny of the $60. At least rent it and try out the FREE 2 day trial online (thanks very much danger close that was very nice of you and I hope more developers use this tactic to get people hooked in a game) because with the free two day trial you can decide if it is for you or not and I believe you will fall in love with it like I have. And yes, once again, it is a blend of CoD and B3 but how is that negative I ask you? Enjoy the game and don't base your decision on some mean spirited and unprofessional reviews. I give it a 8/10 for the MP alone and I will update this review afte I complete the single player which I hope is as good as the last one! Trust me....just try out the free 2 day trial and at least rent it. You have nothing to lose and an awesome MP game to gain! Collapse Expand
  59. 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
  60. Oct 26, 2012
    9
    This may not be a groundbreaking game, nor a Call of Duty killer, but it stills doesnt take away the fact that this is a solid game. The campaign is more of a character study rather than a balls to the wall action game. Its not trying to emulate another game but stay as authentic to what war is while still trying to be fun. This was its demise to most people, it wasnt a twitcher that you didnt have to think about. The story mattered, the cutscenes mattered, and with todays gamers, thats lost. If it is stimulated with an explained explosion or millions of lives in danger then it is written of as generic. This game is a solid title, but the expectations of it were its downfall, when you get the title "CoD killer" you are bound to fail. The graphics are on par and get the job done, nothing to write home about though, the gameplay is solid and works. Hit detection has almost no fault, multiplayer detection has some lag but that should be ironed out. The customization is in depth whether or not you cant customize your own class(create a class). The multiplayer game types are fast and frantic and have different game types, not much, but it keeps things fresh. The Fireteam is great addition to the game, and companies should blatantly ripoff, it works and keeps things balanced. The class system implemented in the game, even with its limitations on guns, is still balanced and fair. The point streaks are in no way overpowered.

    This is solid game in its entirety, it has flaws but most games do. Its written of as generic because it doesnt tread far from the path, but the path it does take it is an interesting one, if your unsure about the game, rent it, try it out. This isnt a game for everyone, and the reviews show it. Thanks!
    Expand
  61. 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.
  62. Oct 25, 2012
    6
    Campaign--Must Play; Multiplayer--Maybe Skip. Recommendation: RENT.

    CAMPAIGN. The single-player story is great and requires more than a brain-dead trigger finger to keep up with. Knowing that the story was penned by real-life operators is actually a pretty cool experience: it infuses each set piece with significance beyond killing/surviving. It's a unique experience to think after a
    scene, "These people actually underwent and survived the situation I just played." Unfortunately, it's not a lot of replay value, and i feel bad not recommending a purchase, especially with actual servicemen penning the material. But it's DEFINITELY worth a play-through, as this is one of video gaming's only games based on specific actual experiences and not just generic historical fiction. MULTIPLAYER. Many have already summarized the multiplayer experience, so i won't belabor those points. But the key factor is that FPS multiplayer is an investment: of time and practice. In my opinion, this game is not enough to warrant the commitment that has been put into other multiplayer games, and it is not that engaging enough to make me say "I want to pump more time into this and will enjoy doing so." So again, definitely rent Warfighter and experience the story. I'm personally happy to have supported a game involving real veterans, but will likely be trading in my copy. Expand
  63. 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
  64. 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
  65. 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
  66. 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
  67. 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
  68. 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.
  69. 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
  70. 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
  71. Oct 23, 2012
    10
    MoHA Warfighter has one of the best graphics ever seen on consoles. Coupled with great storyline and better multiplayer experience than CoD this is a must have.
  72. Oct 24, 2012
    10
    Definitely one of the best shooters I have played to date. I am very impressed. It's sad how many of the negative reviews on here have obviously never even touched the game.
  73. Oct 26, 2012
    6
    Medal of Honor Warfighter is a major disappointment. Major fail and a step back. Rent it before you buy it. I traded in my game at GameStop for $40 ($32.50 + $7.50 bonus) and pre-ordered Black Ops 2 which should be a good game (if only TreyArch could develop their games using Frostbite 2). As you read my thoughts on the game, you
  74. Oct 24, 2012
    10
    Nice campaign a little short though.the multiplayer is unique, if you play this game as a call of duty moron yo will hatte it, this is all about team work and remain Side by side. If you do this youll love it. Graphics are great and the curscenes are allmost next gen.
  75. Oct 23, 2012
    5
    This game looks good but the UI is all over the place. Campaign in very generic and boring. Multiplayer is not bad. Anyone giving this game anything abive a 7 must work for EA. Very overrated for a generic ho hum game.
  76. Oct 26, 2012
    0
    I bought for the campaign, and this is so normal, a fail try copy of COD, only with better graphics, no one wanna be default soldiers with patriotic american missions, every one wanna action! a hero war....Its one reason why EA never will do a better history campaign like COD!
  77. 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
  78. Oct 27, 2012
    10
    This game has destruction...real gun names and sounds....frostbite engine...aswell as some clever class makeups. Best part is every soldier no matter what country you choose to play as...has different guns and setups. Very interesting. The killstreak rewards are hardenough to earn that it doest ruin the game(as cod/mw3) has done. Itd a great game where you are really rewarded for playing with your fireteam partner. This fact alone is most likely the reason why all the low scores have come in for this great game.....its because cod has destroyed true multiplayer online gaming. No such thing as team work in any game except BF3 and MOHW. I have no doubt this is a huge factor in the low scores.
    Campaign is very fun and engaging..but a bit short.
    Expand
  79. Oct 25, 2012
    10
    This is Why Game Companies Need to Have FREE Demo Available that include timed Campaign and Multiplayer. Let people make their own Decisions based on what they Like. Is the Game Playable: Yes Was the Game Fun : That is An Opinion Statement Boring : That is An Opinion Statement Graphics: Graphics without Texture Pack installed - just OK, felt out of date. With Texture Pack Installed, Wonderful. The Explosions, lighting add to the feel of this game feeling like I'm In real places.

    Sound: You can tell the type of weapon being fired by its sound. Battlefield sounds are very believable. The sound was believable as if I was in a gunfight or war. Is the surround sound up to par. I will say it YES!!! I was able to do a full 360 turn and could tell what was to my east, west or south! I am Using Turtle Beach, X42 Surround Sound Head Set,

    Is it True to It's Genre: Yes!

    Is it better then the Last Medal of Honor - In my opinion, Yes Graphics, Sound, Campaign, Multiplayer, Stability. Of course it depends on what you liked or disliked about the Original.

    Is the Campaign Short or Long. I would Say on the Short Side, But is it Action Packed and Good for this type of Genre? But, since it has Multiplayer, I guess this value would be based on what you desire most, a long Single Player or Great Never Ending Multiplayer.

    The first day -Multiplayer at Midnight Release, was horrible. But, all the problems I Suffered the first two Days, are now Gone. (Especially the long Origin Log In Times!)

    In Multiplayer I had a match last night, (I am retired Military, USMC and USArmy) that played out like a real operation (Combat Mission). Surpressive fire while my team mates set the explosive, flash bang the room, then ran in and cleared it. I personally enjoyed it.

    The weapon selection, awesome. The Character Selection, Awesome. (If you find the weapon unlock system confusing, then that does not speak much for your mentality). Now I do find the weapon and character selection system tedious, it could have been streamlined to take less clicks.

    You even unlock things in Single player, like how you can breach - based on head shots you accumulate from prior breaches!

    If you just want it for death match, then you will find Death Match because Death Match is Death Match! Just new places, new weapons, new characters! Think about it, that is all DLC is for this Genre!

    Example how "Professional Raters" can ruin the true Value of a Game: A Particular Critic / Reviewer Stated;

    RATING OUT OF 5

    Graphics 4.8
    Control (Gameplay) 4.5
    Music / Sound FX / Voice Acting 4.3
    Play Value 2.0
    Overall Rating 2.7

    Come on : Play Value is a Total Personal Opinion, Yet it brings this Game down to a 2.7 Out of 5. Yet, look at the other 4 Ratings... Funny!

    Reviewer Says: "Firing a gun feels satisfying, headshots have a zip to them that even Call of Duty lacks" yet also says, "Does Nothing New They Say:", This game adds as much new as a Call of Duty or Black Ops or Battlefield 3. New Maps, New Story, New Weapons, New Classes. Come On, It's based on - "New" World Events and Places. Is It Unique : Really, what today is, including music and the movies. If it was unique it would have to create a new Genre! Is it different - yes, it even feels different and plays different from the Last MOH.

    The Reviewer Said:
    Save Your Hard Earned Money for Something Better, that is unique and not boring? Hmm, what do you recommend? Call Of Duty 13 , Battlefield 23, Brink 4, Asssasin's Creed 8.... How can they be uniqe, they are sequels, and they are in a genre that already exists! Stick to Facts!

    Reviewers are so misleading gamers that rely on reviews to make their gaming decision when they can't afford but so many games a year. Reviewers, stop misleading just because you had problems or didn't like the game. State what you didn't like, even state what did not work for you, but don't lie in order to discourage.

    I have decided to record some gameplay and post it to show how great this game is. Make your own opinion, or rent it... I Would have given it an 8.5, but to make up for the people giving it a bad rating, I boosted it to a 10, just to bring up the average to something deserving!
    Expand
  80. Oct 25, 2012
    2
    It is the time for the big studio to focus more on the gameplay rather than graphic or casulity. this game is a deja vue. all the new release seem to follow the same path thinking is the right course. spend a lot of money in maketing and less in develpment. indie and inndepedent studio are taking the lead wake upppp. to sum up this game is sooo generic that you will feel that you have already played this game elsewhere. skip Expand
  81. Oct 24, 2012
    10
    Ok, here's my official review people. FIRST NOTE (INSTALL HD ELEMENTS TO HDD FOR BEST GFX)

    Single Player
    I was a little weirded out when it started us with a normal scene then threw us into a training course. Why wouldn't they just have us do that first and lead us into the game. Some missions I found frustrating like being pinned down by fire and then killed with an RPG at point
    blank range. The check point system is also seemingly nonexistent and drives me nuts progressing far, being killed and retreating 3 battles back. The AI also slipped numerous times when he says "Ok lets keep things quiet" and he proceeds to shoot and miss they guy alerting the rest of the camp. Aside from the retardedness that is the AI the rest of the story is solid and the characters are engaging. Vehicle missions are sturdy and controls are typical of any racing game. Debris slows you down and mud lets your slip so its all about timing and control. VooDoo and Preacher return from 2010's MoH and are starting to show their humanity and depression from their active tours.

    Multiplayer
    This is where the game finally shines. There are a variety of game modes but my most favorite is HotSpot, in this game mode there are 5 designated targets on the map selected randomly for demolition. One team has a time limit to defend it and the other has to plant a demo charge to destroy it. If its defended then it moves onto the next target and the defenders win a round, same if the attackers destroy the target they win the round and best of 3 out of 5 wins. There is one thing that bothers me the most and I found myself doing it last night to power rank my gun was that spawns are predictable and you can stand behind them with a sniper and pick them off as soon as they spawn. The spawn areas are so wide open that you can hide far behind then enemy team without them noticing you and they will always spawn and lye down thinking they can get cover. A simple fix for this wold be to award no points for spawn area kills or have it be a kill area for enemies like BF3. Now the gameplay is extremely fast, similar to that of the call of duty series but has a bit of strategy using each player ability to its potential. I team up with a friend, me as Spec Ops and himself as SFOD-D Pointman. Pointmen can use heavy hitter ammo to take down most targets fast and spec ops are more agile and fast on the field. Its a great combo to use.

    In the end with the problems aside and the patches I foresee in the upcoming weeks I give this game a solid... 9.5/10

    Story 9.0
    GFX 10
    Sound 9.5
    Control 9.7
    Expand
  82. 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
  83. 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
  84. 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
  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 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
  87. 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
  88. 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
  89. 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 ££
  90. 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
  91. Oct 23, 2012
    9
    This game is awesome, don't listen to the COD fanboys, campaign is fun, multiplayer is different. But bring different is good, it's better then have the same create a class used over and over again. The game will make you install a HD upgrade just like Battlefield 3. Multiplayer is also fast pace and not all the maps are sniper friendly. Overall the game is a new experience from the same old games that look the same every year! Expand
  92. Oct 23, 2012
    10
    Amazing game The graphics blow me away with there astounding browns and shades of brown there is more brown in this game than any game before it.Also worth of note is the level design i only got frustrated 23 times during the four hour campaign.
  93. Oct 23, 2012
    2
    Your kidding me it looks horrible compared to the last one. Down load HD pack 1.7 gigs, don't bother it doesn't help. All the gameplay vids and multiplayer vids were all on PC. I loved the last one played it through 3 times on Xbox and then on ps3 too. And by the way I don't like COD. Fooled again by EA!
  94. Oct 25, 2012
    3
    Just not a very good game. Poor collision detection, tons of bugs they apparently didn't fix in that huge day one patch, entirely forgettable campaign, bland mutliplayer. The fireteam mechanic is pretty cool I guess, but more often than not the game just decides to stop loading after Origin butts its ugly face in. The menus are clustered and slow, and the maps are hardly memorable. It's also not very good looking. Battlefield 3 puts it to shame in this regard, which just seems out of whack. I can't tell you if the game is really bad or just aggressively mediocre. What I can tell you, however, is that for the life of me, I don't know why I paid 60 dollars for it. Expand
  95. 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
  96. 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
  97. Oct 26, 2012
    3
    SP is decent but way too short. i completed it in 7 hours without any intent to make a speedrun.
    graphics in SP are good and it is quite entertaining. char chases, hide and seek, a bit stealth combine to a nice mixture. also nice was that it was not over the top like COD. there were no uberbosses which made it quite realistic. so far so good. unfortunately the game crashes a lot. for me 3
    times ion the SP campaign and 3 times in MP in the 10 hours i was plaxing it. this brings me t the MP Part: i was playing for about 4 hours. graphics are awful, the look is like you play on an old xbox. maps feature no destruction at all (why do they advertise with frostbyte 2 engine??) and the MP gameply is much too CODish. the only good this is the weapon customization, but this cant outweigh the othe rbad stuff in MP. there are just too many issues to mention: sniper is useless, because maps are too small, support is almost useless etc. sometimes you spawn in areas outside the map, sometimes you spawn falling through the world.
    many issues are fixable, but again another unfinished EA release, give us your money we'll maybe fix it later...
    only value for this game is the far too short single player campaing, and for 50 euro this is a rip off!
    Expand
  98. Oct 25, 2012
    0
    This game was highly disappointing and I regret not waiting until I read initial reviews. This is the last Medal of Honor game I will ever buy again. If you plan on buying, save your money and pick up Halo4, Black Ops 2 or Hitman instead.
  99. 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
  100. 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
  101. Oct 28, 2012
    0
    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.
    Collapse
Metascore
53

Mixed or average reviews - based on 43 Critics

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