Metascore

Mixed or average reviews - based on 43 Critics What's this?

User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 377 Ratings

  • Summary: Medal of Honor Warfighter is inspired by and has been developed in association with Tier 1 Operators. This personal story was written by Tier 1 Operators while deployed around the world. In it, players assume the roles of these warfighters and apply unique skill sets to track down a genuine global threat, in real international locations, sponsored by real enemies. Expand
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 2 out of 43
  2. Negative: 8 out of 43
  1. Nov 6, 2012
    75
    All in all, Medal of Honor: Warfighter is a nice surprise after last year's let down of sorts, and it's nice to see the direction that the studio is going for by blending realism that is inspired by true events but keeping game play mild enough that casual fans won't feel too overwhelmed.
  2. Nov 13, 2012
    70
    A decent addition to the series, Warfighter brings some new ideas to the mix and offers a solid experience for every FPS fan. Its main issue is the lack of vision to push a bit further from the classic formula and offer something unique.
  3. Nov 27, 2012
    70
    The game brings nothing new to the shooting genre; it's predictable and seems to be nothing more than a stop-gap before EA's behemoth Battlefield 4 is eventually released. Warfighter could have been so much more, but alas it wasn't.
  4. Oct 25, 2012
    45
    Medal of Honor Warfighter fails in almost every regard. Warfighter's campaign is a jumble of flashy parts that Danger Close unsuccessfully tries to glue together, and the solid foundation of its multiplayer is buried under a broken interface, small maps and poor interface design.

See all 43 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 78 out of 138
  2. Negative: 42 out of 138
  1. 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
  2. Okay first things first, I'm not really sure why this game is getting such bad reviews. I've only played about 2 missions into the story and the graphics are solid, the cutscenes are gorgeous, and the gameplay is pretty fun. The first MoH story was awesome and was ultimately the reason why I got this new one. Well that and because of the Beta on the 360. The thing that really shines for me is the multiplayer. Okay the graphics aren't great online, but who cares! The gameplay is fantastic, it really seems like they took the best parts from both BF3 and MW3. Lots and lots of Gun customization, nice sized maps, and people that don't give a **** about their K/D's and actually play the objective. Me and my brother are really trying to figure out all the hate for this game. I realize EA sucks and they are insanely money hungry, but that doesn't mean that they don't have dedicated game designers who clearly still care what the people want. No it's not the most original game ever made, but it was executed very well and I think people should at least give it a chance. Expand
  3. 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
  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 Collapse

See all 138 User Reviews