GameSpot - Medal of Honor: Warfighter doesn't merge its cliched parts into a satisfying whole, making it just another middle-of-the-road military shooter.
Why are people calling this a "generic story" they tried something unique with Preacher's story and I can honestly say that i nearly cried at the end. Something that no other FPS has done..
Despite the very low reviews I bet this is still going to sell quite well, people love their holiday FPS games
What did they do differently? SPOILERS A person died, but you don't really care about him. Ghost in COD had more importance....I liked what they were doing, but they didn't develop it enough. A short 5 hour campaign, if they expanded it to 10 hours with more story it would have done something different, but as it stands yes it is very stereotypical....It's like the guy getting shot in Battlefield 3, you didn't care he was shot for any reason beyond he was a soldier and now you have to protect him. Visually it was awesome, thats about it though. And the end yeah it got me emotional tied to it, but that wasn't for the game, it was for our real life soldiers....the game didn't portray that quote well at all till the very last scene. Go watch Saving Private Ryan and We Were Soldiers and see how that story would have been done correctly, and they only had two hours to tell the story. MOH had 5 or more....
Yikes time for another series reboot,better luck next gen EA. @rituska666/Same thing happend to me,it was dreadful how bad those ladies looked at the end,it was scary,freaky made me wanna cry after playing 4-5 hours of this run of mill shooter.
And IGN gave it a 4.5.....I don't understand IGN, do they not actually play the games when they preview them? IGN was going "omg its amazing!" all the way up until launch, then they delay their review and still go "oh its pretty good" and then turn around and say "it sucks!"
Well to be fair, the person that does the previews almost never does the reviews, and MOH is one of the ones that the reviewer didn't preview. Different opinions from different people, blame the preview guy for hyping it up, the reviewer had nothing to do with it.
I'd agree but the person that did the review was even saying that. During the video explaining why his review was delayed he said "It's growing on me and its rather good. The single player is awesome" And I think its a bit wrong to have two different people work on one game. Or at least have some communication between the two, or more than one review....
@Soldierone OK, I don't really check IGN's review in progress stuff, but that is messed up to say that a game is rather good and give it a 4.5. I know Gamespot explains why they do that in their review policy page, it's to prevent some bias and conflict of interest. I do agree that it is wrong though to have two people work on one game.
Welcome to game previews. Sad but true. They ALWAYS say a game is looking stellar. A lot of them read like modified press releases. It's pretty silly, actually.
Perhaps the areas EA/Danger Close released for preview didn't give an accurate/fair representation of the game as a whole.
I'm almost done sp & am lvl 45 in mp. The game is fun. Period. I'm not sure when ratings and journalism in gaming got so derailed....but it's out of touch. And many people - gamers I mean who frequent forums and reviews...they happily bag on games they either never played, had no intention of playing and feel like they need to support only one game in a genre. Ign gave it 4/10.....sp looks great, plays good and feels believable. Story arc is different and feels like act of valour...which was fun ride. I could go on....I'm just over the need for games to have to be 9/10 to be worth our time. It's flawed but decent with a few new ideas.
I'm glad review sites are giving this such low scores. While I've only played the beta, it felt fairly obvious to me that this wasn't made to challenge the the fps elite and more to capitalize on the current state of the fps market. Obviously fans of the game can't understand it but when a game scores so low universally, it's usually for a reason.
It also means I'll be getting a hell of a deal on the game come Black Friday!!! From what I heard from most gamers I trust, the game is nothing groundbreaking, but it's fun, especially if you go into it not expecting anything revolutionary, but just a good time shootin' stuffs.
I want to say first that I haven't played Warfighter so take my observations with a grain of salt. From reading and watching gameplay this title seems to be the distilled essence of the problems with this specific type of shooter. A linear/limited shooting gallery that whilst attractive, was made with the sole intention of breaching (breaching, see what I did there, you know, cos' of all the brea... nevermind) the CoD crowd, A fools errand, and the fact that it seems unfinished only adds to the fact that EA are so desperate for the CoD crowd that they have thrown any notion of common sense out of the window. I neither like or dislike CoD. I have fun with the campaigns and fully understand why it's so popular. Its success is both good and bad. The bad being the obsession with besting it. It's strangulating the industry and developers who are clearly told to immitate it. It's also given gamers a skewed vision of FPS games when a vast majority are clones. FPS can be so much more, just look at Bioshock or HL2. This trend saddens me. CoD is here to stay and despite what anyone says, for the moment it won't be toppled. These rivals trying to imitate that trend for 5 years, must realise the horse's corpse is now a bloody pulp.
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.