Polygon: Medal of Honor Warfighter is developer Danger Close’s second try at rebooting EA’s venerable but moribund military franchise.
Great review reading it felt like I was playing the game unfortunately.
I'm really irritated right now seeing you talk shit in all reviews of MOH. I really wish you could stop the hate in this game ok?
ritsuka666 3d ago "Why are you defending mediocre garbage like Resident Dogshit 6? Get a serious brain checkup people, this game is a trainwreck and deserves all hate. Get over it this game is shit and you know it." Same could be said about this game.
all 8 reviews of this game so far are 6/10 or worse. It's pretty safe to assume this game isn't as good as it could be.
Bad A.I. (Check) Boring Gameplay (Check) Poor map design (Check) 4.5/10 seems gracious to me.
Good to know, I won't be buying this; personally, I am sick of FPS games excluding the BF series.
Play some Counter Strike.
The most basic, generic of FPS games? Yeeeeaaaaah, that'll really mix things up if he's tired of FPS games >_>
Eh, been playing 2004 and it is better than most of the crap that we are forced to choose from. It has been going on since about 2000, so sure, i guess a game made 2000 could be generic when compared to the other million shooters made in the last decade, but it does not require a very powerful pc, it has a big fan base, lots of tournaments, and the newest one costs 15 dollars. If you have not tried it, then people should try it. Not everyone discovered online FPS gaming with CoD 4. Almost everything AFTER CS is generic to the CS community.
I don't care if it came first. As it is today...it's as generic as they come. The suggestion from omarzy happened an hour ago. In the year 2012. And if you aren't aware (and judging by your comment, you are), they released an new one very recently. Still generic as they get. "Almost everything AFTER CS is generic to the CS community" - Anyone that feels that way obviously has no taste for variety and is stuck in their small little comfortable universe.
"And if you aren't aware (and judging by your comment, you are), they released an new one very recently. Still generic as they get." Valve is just sticking to the formula that created the fan base. CS Source was released in 2005, then in 2012 we get CS: GO. I still believe it offers something different in terms of that match types. So many different, creative, and crazy match types to choose from beyond team death match or stand at this location for 30 seconds to win the game. I don't believe it deserves much negativity. Valve does not charge for anything besides the game, the online as is has much more value than console fps, no constant releases or buying the same game every year, and it is a simple, but solid formula. It is not as generic as you would think if you look at all the different match types and Mods. You are getting a solid game, i will tell you that. - "Anyone that feels that way obviously has no taste for variety and is stuck in their small little comfortable universe." Well, how would you feel? You play CS in early 2000's, then you go through the big FPS craze with multiple FPS getting released a year for every console and even phones. You see all these games being made in the past decade, you think it is generic, right? However, i am talking about people who plyed CS in the early days. "
I'll pick it up for $5 next year.
You'd pay five dollars for this? That's a lot of money for this...game. Five dollar foot long> MoH: Warfighter. The foot long probably last longer too.
My positives and negatives: Campaign --- + Some cut-scenes look really good. + Decent ending. + Peek and lean is fun. + Choosing your breaching tool is a nice touch. + Driving missions are quite fun. + Some characters are interesting, but only slightly. - Forgettable story. - Typical bland shooter missions. - Mini freezes during game and cut-scenes. - Audio and visual bugs. - Only six hours long. Multiplayer --- + Tons of weapon customization. + Weapons handle well. + Lots of soldiers and classes to choose from. + Lots of community features and options. - Basic, uninteresting maps. - Poor map design. Get used to choke points and camping. - Menus take some getting used to. - Audio and visual bugs. Similar to the campaign. - Boring, basic first-person shooter gameplay. - Not a large selection of modes to choose from. Rent? Buy? Stay away? --- I think it's worth a rent, but then again I'm a bit biased because I'm such a fan of first-person shooters. It's really only worth renting if you played the one before this or if you're bored and need something to do. There is a two day multiplayer trial if you don't have an online pass, so it's a nice thing to have if you decide to rent the game. Don't expect too much is really all I can say.
I got it tuesday and I love it. The multiplayer needs to be patched for sure but im loving the single player. Love the sniper mission were you snipe off a kitchen table the car chase was sweet too. If you liked moh last year this one is better. All the bad reviews are because its not call of duty. Cod has ruined games like socom and splinter cell and unfortunately gamers all expect fps games to be like cod. Yes battlefield is amazing and people love it but as far as fast paced shooters like moh they flop because people have sunk to the call of duty standards. If you want cod grow a pair and play cod 1 2 even 3 and 4 was good. So stfu moh is great and im sorry no recent cod has been near realistic take it from me I have done alot of them tactics and used the guns in real life moh is more realistic then cod from a tactical standpoint. Fact is you will not see a good review or if you do no one will play it for long. Ex the new ghost recon great game but people forgot about it. But everyone and their mother will drop at least 60 this year for the same game since cod 4. O yay new perks and maps better run out and drop 60 dollars. Buy MOH its great!
First off, telling people to "grow a pair" and "stfu" is probably not a great way of convincing someone a game is as good as you say it is. Just letting you know. Also, I'm not denying that you've used military weapons and tactics before, but most people aren't going to believe that unless you have actual proof. With that said, it's probably best if you just left that part out. If you're trying to make a game sound good, it's a good idea to praise the game by giving reasons why you think it's good. Comparing it to another game and then constantly bashing that said game is not going to get you anywhere. It becomes more about how terrible you think another game is rather than the on-topic one. Which, does not help your case. Think of how terrible a game must be if you can't list positive things about it and instead resort to bashing a similar game. I think you're forgetting that nobody is saying Call of Duty has or ever will be realistic. That's what sets it apart from a game like Battlefield. A game like Battlefield takes itself much more seriously in realism terms. Call of Duty is more of an arcade shooter with fast-paced action. You have to realize that. Just because you have a military shooter doesn't mean it needs to be realistic. The same could be said for every other video game genre. Lastly, this game is getting mediocre reviews because it's a mediocre game. It's a typical military first-person shooter. There's no innovation with it.
these reviewers have a vindetta against EA and are trying to make them suffer because they didn't get their review copy "on time"... more will come out on this shortly, and some of these biased heads will roll... watch what happens... reviewers, some people high up are on to you...
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.