DarkStation: "It’s fitting that so much of Medal of Honor Warfighter’s script is composed of military acronyms, given that the entire game is shorthand for designs and concepts that have been done in other, overwhelmingly better military shooters. Warfighter is uninspired, underdeveloped, and completely profligate with the solemn potential of its core concept." 4/10
The story does some interesting stuff by showing how the family of these soldiers are affected, but everything else could be straight out of MW2. The shooting feels weak, the audio sounds like low resolution bf3 sound clips, and I didn't bother with the mp or feel the need to try it out.
With that said, the game is just average, maybe even slightly below average, but this game certainly is better than a 4/10 or any review similar to that. These reviews of late just reinforce the idea that you can't trust review scores.
MoH is guilty of being "yet another military" shooter and the development allowed themselves to no go just with the mainstream. It gets marked down for being a Cod clone but yet not being the exact same (buddy system???). I am playing and enjoying it.
So what score do they give this one which does everything better than the first game including an improved engine and much deeper multiplayer? 4/10.
Seriously, I give up. People complain that it's just another military shooter when it's actually the only present day military shooter that's being released this fall. Call of Duty has gone into sci-fi territory (and then some when you add the zombie mode). Halo is a military shooter with aliens. If those games aren't for you (for me, they aren't) and you want a game in ACTUAL times with a touch of realism, MoH is perfectly fine.
But to each his own, I guess.