User Score
5.4

Mixed or average reviews- based on 416 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 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. Collapse
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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.
  21. 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
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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!
  25. 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...
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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.
  29. 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
  30. 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!
  31. Nov 16, 2012
    0
    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. 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]