EA thinks reviewers are wrong about 'Medal of Honor: Warfighter'
Medal of Honor: Warfighter was met with review scores much lower than most AAA, big-budget releases, but EA has essentially rejected these scores and believes the game is better than critics say.
(EA, Medal of Honor: Warfighter, PC, PS3, Xbox 360)
@Blastoise - Your comment would make sense if CoD wasn't the sales juggernaut that it is. Sure, any popular thing will get hate from certain people, but the thing that is not the popular thing will always get more hate. It's just not as high profile because the hate is against something that isn't popular, so people like you won't feel the inexplicable urge to defend the thing that is in reality winning already.
Don't forget - internet review sites don't represent gamers. They represent trolls and bitter fanboys who are so jaded it would make your head spin. This is why RE6 has gone on to sell millions of copies even though it has been panned by several review sites. The game isn't technically bad, it's just that people are sick of the over saturated market of gritty modern war shooters, and familiarity breeds contempt. Most review sites will tell you it just isn't fun - that's because they themselves have been playing every single modern combat game ever to come out for hours on end, of course they're going to get sick of it, but if you're the type who isn't you may just enjoy Medal of Honor, otherwise go play something different like Dishonored or AC3.
I'm really starting to think its a social stigma with this game.
I have seen this game in action and as the overall look and feel and Production value of the game has improved drasticaly since the last release, I cant seem to understand the MEGA LOW review scores.
Im starting to thing everyones joining to beat up the kid who brought the new toy to school.
Ya.. because COD isn't hated by most everyone who doesn't play it.
You sound like a butt hurt BF3 fanboy. Buy a PC for BF3... it blows away it's sucky console counterpart.
Reading more here... look at all the EA fanboys preaching and crying about double standards. "If cod black ops 2 get's a better score i'll..."
You'll what? Who cares about you. You're in the minority. More people love COD than hate it. There's two FPS games this year to buy... COD and Halo. Everything else is just crap.
Personally, I don't think the game is bad at all. Once you play it, you get the vibe that it's just Battlefield with close quartered style maps. That being said, it's not like COD at all in terms gameplay. "Camping" proves ineffective once the other team realizes that you're doing it. There are no trick shots and MOH is not as fast paced. The general style is visibly noticeable as MOH tried to create a realistic and believable atmosphere. In the gaming industry, money talks. It's almost a legal form of communism where those tha speak the truth are silenced. COD does a prime example of this. Gametrailers and Gamespot have been sponsored by activision and other multi billion dollar companies in an effort to draw consumers.
TL; DR: COD is the Mission Impossible of gaming. MOH is the "Hurt Locker" of gaming. Both will get mixed reviews depending on the views of the customer.
^^^ This. You speak my mind. That's exactly what this game is.. Faster than BF3 on smaller maps but no CoD. So, if BF3 controls, maps and graphics are great, why isn't this game? It surprisingly doesn't try to be Cod, but most of the criticism it gets is from people expecting just that and making it down because obviously it isn't. Or people who haven't even played it but still think it's EAs version of CoD.
MOH (2010) was rated by IGN with an average of 7+ in areas like Presentation, Graphics, Sound, Gameplay & Lasting-Appeal. Yet, IGN gave it an Overall score of just 6/10.
MOH:W (2012) has improved on the 2010 game in every aspect, yet IGN lowered the score to 4.5.
Exactly. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. They make it like Call of Duty and they get hate. They try different things than Call of Duty and they get hate. I actually liked the single player of the 2010 Medal of Honor. The MP felt lacking, especially in map variety. But I bought it because it gave me access to the Bad Company 2 beta (which I played the hell out of) AND it gave me a free copy of Medal of Honor: Frontlines on the PS3.
This new Medal of Honor is just a victim of the times. Anything that tries to compete with Call of Duty is bashed to death for trying to follow its success. EA could put out the most authentic single player and most fun exciting multiplayer full of content and it would STILL get hated on by the CoD-biased gaming media.
the sp is surprisingly AWESOME!! the first game is nothing in comparison to this .. normally I would laugh at the story and the drama but damn it was nicely done here ..
there is a car stealth level which is fucking brilliant!!!
Game is great!! I've been playing nonstop since last week. Most of the ppl saying it sucks haven't even played it yet, they just follow what's being fed into their brains by the manipulated media. I feel sorry for them.
@yaz288 Car chases and that car stealth part where you actually get to drive the cars, the breaching options and the way to unlock them. And still some reviewers say there's nothing new, that Hot Spot MP mode is new, at least I had never seen it before, some killstrikes I've never seen before.
Watch future COD games copy this and all the COD fanboys go like "OMG THIS NEW! SO INNOVATIVE!" lmao! It's happened before!
im playing alot of the mp and i enjoy it. its not perfect though. only cod games i played were cod2 and cod4mw. those were very cool. i never bought another one cause the sequels looked like the game i already owned. not much of a difference year to year. fuck it maybe its just me. anyways warfighter is my preference at the moment. and next year will be bf4. good times
I said it before and say it again. The car sequences match full blown racing games. Driving, traffic, handling...haven't seen this in any non racer so far.
Awwww. Someone call the waaahmbulance cause we hurt ea's feelings:( today is a good day indeed. I feel this is our revenge against those low lives at ea
Have you played the game yet?? I haven't and I probably won't in the future as I'm sick to death of FPS games but the trailers do make the game look great. I don't trust any reviewers so maybe EA has a point. It seems review sites these days go with what everyone else is saying. Ya know jump on that bandwagon. "That game is great", "Yeah that game is great". "Ya know that game is crap" "Your right that game is crap" "Oh but I haven't played it yet" "Yeah me neither" SMH
I torrented it (i torrent any EA games simply because i refuse to use Origin. Give me a break here i buy everything else) and the single player is honestly no worse than a CoD game. Its just a bunch of giant setpeaces. In the first 3 minutes you watch crates rain down on you, helicopters and tanks explode, etc.
It's mindless shooting fun and it looks pretty. haha i really dont think it deserves the bad reviews it's getting for "unoriginality" when CoD doesn't have a single ounce of originality in any of their games. At least MoH Warfighter uses a new engine.
EA knows the truth. Everyone knows EA gives DICE a blank check to make sure BF stays on top w/ CoD. The MoH didn't know how to utilize the frostbite engine to it's full potential. The reason CoD gets nods on the story is because they hire big name talent to write and do the musical scores. They make sure their SP is nothing short of a Michael Bay movie experience. That's not a bad thing. If MoH made an amazing story and untilized Frostbits destructive architecture, they would have a solid game. Also, take out that idiotic slow motion kill shot in MP. That's so annoying.
There is nothing wrong with this game.. the Campaign is fantastic and the firebuddy system is awesome! sure there are a few bugs in multiplayer but it is not enough to bring the review scores down to 4's and 5's. its ridiculous. I bet you the op in this thread didnt even play the game as well as 70% of the other ppl who insulted the game who commented on this article.
True, EA blows but MOHW is a great game. You just have to actually play the game instead of trash talking it like you know it (no, the beta does not count).
Not wrong, just being "Authentic" about the state of the game.
I bought the game for the PC and i'm deeply dissapointed , the single player is more of the same i was expecting a quality of campaign next to the first MoH, but i was wrong...
The Mutiplayer is a joke, it's totally unbalanced the unlocking system is confusing and doesn't make any sense at alll
And also.... since the game was announced didn't really see much info of the game and they did promises that they didn't delivered...
Joke? what game are you playing. Mutiplayer is solid. Not sure what's unbalanced about it either? Single player on the other hand is weak. But that is to be expected.
"Single player on the other hand is weak. But that is to be expected."
No, this is MOH, that's not what is expected from a MOH game. I did enjoy the single player, but it was short, filled with bugs, poor AI, etc, etc, etc.
The game did not live up to the names MOH or Tier-1, EA should be ashamed.
Note that the problem reviewers are having with this game can and SHOULD easily be said for the past few Call of Duty releases; but look at the scores these same sites give to call of Duty.
Call of Duty is hated because it's been virtually the same damn game since 2008 or so, yet it gets rave reviews and sees record-breaking sales with each iteration.
Warfighter, by all accounts, improves on the last Medal of Honor, but it's getting even worse reviews. How does that make any sense?
@Hicken Because CoD has more money for it's advertising budget than any other game in history and reviewers will never trash a cash cow, it'll cost them their pay or even their job.
So if BO:2 was complete trash, it would still get a 7.5 or greater score just to keep on Activision's good side.
yea its quite tactical and i like it when you work in pairs. i dont care what any one says reviews are way off in this game . it is a solid game if a little intimidating to start with.
You are just another sheep in the hate bandwagon. I never choose my purchase over another individuals opinion. I make my own opinions and so far i believe in my lifetime of gaming since i can remember i have been disappointed by a total of 8 games. and those were back when i was young and thought everything was badass.
All im trying to say is dont be a sheep. Be a individual.
Here is my individual opinion as well as my whole friends list that i play with....
This game is great!
You probably havent even played the game. so dont comment about how good a game is.
Then what the help do you want him to do huh? To pay 60 bucks for everygame that comes out and find out by himself that the game sucks? Dud you're such an idiot
You are the idiot assuming im telling him to buy every game that comes out. if you aren't going to understand my previous comment then there is no reason for me to even explain my common sense.....
and considering your past comments on here you are just another idiot troll on here anyway.
"Don't be a sheep, be an individual who buys the latest military FPS from a corporation with a massive advertising budget to tell me just how great the game is with slick trailers".
Uh huh. Look, MoH is trying so hard to be CoD that it hurts. With the real thing out in a few days, why in the hell should people take a risk on an inferior copy of a formula perfected by another company?
If you truly want to be an individual, buy something different like Okami HD or some other indy game from PSN or XBLA that offers something different rather than clogging the charts with stuff that's trying to copy already established franchises. Don't reward companies with a "me too" approach to making games.
The fact that Medal of Honour Warfighter went to number one in the UK chart depresses the hell out of me.
^^^ another sheep. You obviously haven't played it. The only thing in common with CoD is the modern setting...which isn't even true for their next installment because it plays in a fictional future. So, your just hating, aren't you? Best proof you are.
your comment disgusts me. did you even read your comment before you posted that trying to prove a point of some sort??
whatever man lol go ahead and pay 60 bucks for your game that comes out soon that plays exactly like the last 5 games in the series. Just because its a military shooter does NOT make it the same game thats "inferior" to your precious completely milked yearly released series....
"We’re going to continue to support the game going forward with marketing and additional content.”
Whats the point in supporting it when you can spend your time doing something else. No point supporting a not so well recieved game, maybe 1/2 DLCs then thats it.
They should take a note of this failure for Battlefield 4 and just put it on hold to make Bad Company 3 instead.
Picked it up today And the reviews are bullshit, the campaign is really good, I haven't played the multiplayer yet so I can't comment on that but as far as the single player goes I am loving it. Really nice pacing, the graphics are beautiful and as for the reviewers saying its much of the same I disagree. I found it to be a very believable experience and I like realism. Call of duty is like a summer blockbuster, loads of action but lacking any real substance. I recommend this game to any FPS fan and I hope the reviews don't cause people to avoid this shooter.
Tbh, corridor fps games only sell because of the multiplayer but they just don't provide the experience of open world games that give the player freedom. Far Cry 3, Crysis 3 and Bioshock Infinite are the only fps games I'll be buying in the near future. Military shooters can go f*ck themselves.
But so are most publishers who push developers to release incomplete titles with little or no quality control. BLack Ops 2 was clearly why MOH:W was rushed out.
Personally, this game could have been better. There were a few missions that I thought were pretty cool (car mission comes to mind) but I was very disappointed... it's not that great :/
Title was so polished and so much hearts was poured into it Ea had to hold review copies just so they could deliver them with that 1.7 GB patch on day 1. Otherwise shit wouldn't work. Medal of Error is just a Holidays filler since they have nothing to dump on store shelves this year in fps section
You can say what you want about the various websites that review your game EA but when we gamers say your games sucks you might want to take our opinions seriously.
You shouldn't assume people are dumb enough to assume you are telling the truth when you say you played it. People may not like it, but to say it sucks is just showing stating a falsity and a down right lie. Assumption is safe in this context.
I was watching this game pretty closely and read several reviews when they finally hit. I was surprised by some people really defending it, so I had to try it for myself. I didn't think the game warranted the lows scores it received, but I did just try out the multiplayer. I thought it was fun, liked the buddy concept, and bought it. People can trash this game all they want, but how many people have actually played it and given it a chance? It's pretty obvious reviews can't entirely be trusted like they once were, and not just because of what happened with the MOH reviews. Too much money is involved now, possibly along with job security. EA's reputation doesn't help this situation either, as they have pissed me off loads of times with the directions the company takes. And yes, Warfighter was rushed to market because of Black Ops 2, but I still think Danger Close did a good job.
I see people defending it, "oh but but but, this one gets good reviews."
I'd just like to know, what exactly did Medal of Honor do BETTER than any other game? Its Campaign is shorter than most games, I'd put it right there with Homefront in that regards. It had no motivation, was stereotypical, and the peek system was used before many times....
This is no COD clone. Maps are larger and way better designed. The guns are much more balanced; shotguns are useless at any distance(and therefore you don't have idiots running around with duel kimbos ruining the game). Heavy machine guns are deadly in close but due to the realistic kick, they are hard to get kills at distance. Submachine guns are the same, to shoot at someone across the map with one is a waste of time. They are designed for close quarter combat and are not going to be usefull at far range. A very refreshing thing to see. But these two types of weapons have high agility ratings so you can scope them much faster than sniper or assualt rifles and therefore become more deadly than those at close range. The agility rating is brilliant. This game requires you to know what your gun is good for and avoid confrontations that they are not good for. In COD any gun I used, worked for just about any scenerio, like The ak74U which somehow can take people down across the map with a few shots. In MOH I find that I actually use all the classes often depending on the flow of the game; something I've never had to do in COD. Unlike COD, you cannot kill someone with full health with a couple of shots; this game requires that you get headshots(accuracy is a must), and you still need a few headshots so lucky one hit kills are non existent, this makes you earn your kill and leads to the better player generally winning the shoot out. COD it is so easy to get kills because it only takes a few shots, so you can come up on 4 guys and take them down with one clip. Not so in MOH. You will get two at the most before your clip runs out and the other two take you down. This leads to making sure you stay with your buddy cause freelancing(which is all COD is) will get you killed fast. This buddy system alone is more progressive than anything COD has offered.. Unlike COD, You very rarely get shot in the back from someone who just respawned behind you, making the respawn much better. . So this why it is not like COD: far superior maps & graphics, better gun balance (no overpowering weapons like kimbos), way harder to get kills, team effort is must &rewards you for helping your body and punishes you for being a lone wolf, no stupid quick scoping, weapon kick is much more realistic, only a few perks and that dont ruin the game(no stupid dogs or nukes or heartbeat detector crap), just a couple unique to each class and not overpowering or annoying as those in COD, no teleporting knife attacks that kill at laughable distances, hit detection is much better than COD's, way more weapon customizations. Basically it is superior in every way. So far every one of you idiots that say its COD clone or it's terrible, have never been able to give one accurate reason to defend your argument. I just gave you over a dozen. The hate comes from people expecting it to play like COD and when they find that it takes far more skill to put someone down, they get frustrated and upset and think the game is glitched. I did the same thing; I hated it at first because I wasn't getting very many kills and thought the hit detection must be off, but once I realized it is not COD and spray and pray doesn't work, the true joy of this game came out. I was at an 18% accuracy because I was used to spray and prey mechanics like COD and I was getting owned. I noticed that the good players had around 23% accuracy, so started focusing on short accurate burst and as my accuracy climbed, my K/D improved greatly. So it really comes down to the people who do not understand that you have to play with control and patience. In today's ADD society, people want easy kills and tiny little maps so that they don't have to run more than a few feet before seeing someone to shoot. They dont want to be responsible for the team, they just want to be lone wolfs. For every reason i dislike COD, MOH shines. So play a game before making stupid comments.
Sorry, but for some people games don't have to be better than others to justify a purchase or to be considered fun. I loved games like Heavenly Sword or Castlevania LOS, but in many reviewers' and gamers' opinions those games didn't do anything better when compared to God of War. Still loved them though. Have you even played any of the COD campaigns? I have, several times over for trophies and achievements, and those aren't lacking motivation and are not considered stereotypical in any way?
They are entertaining, with the exception of MW3 which was just as terrible as MOH. Black Ops had an interesting story to it, MW2 had a cool blockbuster story (and when a character died at least you knew who it was and why it was important), and MW started the whole stereotypical thing.
MOH's was like "oh cool lets send them here in the rain for no real reason at all! and then blow everything up, and still say "its authentic like real life"' .....
I won't lie, the game was going somewhere I was interested in it, then it hit a snag and never came out. The visuals were mind blowing at times too, it was awesome in that regards.
90°
70°
80°
160°
Ad 
30°
10°
40°
20°
20°
10°
And right now for the most part, people are really hating it.
Yeah, it's not like CoD gets hate or anything
/s
Fuck EA
I have seen this game in action and as the overall look and feel and Production value of the game has improved drasticaly since the last release, I cant seem to understand the MEGA LOW review scores.
Im starting to thing everyones joining to beat up the kid who brought the new toy to school.
its not great; but its also not 2/10 Bad PERIOD.
Ya.. because COD isn't hated by most everyone who doesn't play it.
You sound like a butt hurt BF3 fanboy. Buy a PC for BF3... it blows away it's sucky console counterpart.
Reading more here... look at all the EA fanboys preaching and crying about double standards. "If cod black ops 2 get's a better score i'll..."
You'll what? Who cares about you. You're in the minority. More people love COD than hate it. There's two FPS games this year to buy... COD and Halo. Everything else is just crap.
nd it was an improvement of the 2010 game..
TL; DR: COD is the Mission Impossible of gaming. MOH is the "Hurt Locker" of gaming. Both will get mixed reviews depending on the views of the customer.
===
MOH (2010): 6/10
MOH:W (2012): 4.5/10
Where's the logic?!
MOH (2010) was rated by IGN with an average of 7+ in areas like Presentation, Graphics, Sound, Gameplay & Lasting-Appeal. Yet, IGN gave it an Overall score of just 6/10.
MOH:W (2012) has improved on the 2010 game in every aspect, yet IGN lowered the score to 4.5.
Ridiculous!!!
This new Medal of Honor is just a victim of the times. Anything that tries to compete with Call of Duty is bashed to death for trying to follow its success. EA could put out the most authentic single player and most fun exciting multiplayer full of content and it would STILL get hated on by the CoD-biased gaming media.
so i'll have to give it a try myself.
the sp is surprisingly AWESOME!! the first game is nothing in comparison to this .. normally I would laugh at the story and the drama but damn it was nicely done here ..
there is a car stealth level which is fucking brilliant!!!
for the sp alone I give it a 8.5..
@yaz288
Car chases and that car stealth part where you actually get to drive the cars, the breaching options and the way to unlock them. And still some reviewers say there's nothing new, that Hot Spot MP mode is new, at least I had never seen it before, some killstrikes I've never seen before.
Watch future COD games copy this and all the COD fanboys go like "OMG THIS NEW! SO INNOVATIVE!" lmao! It's happened before!
Did someone say Lauren Whitman...hurhur
They're certainly no less sellouts than iD Software are, and for that part, most of the industry.
And actually it's not really a good day, because if it doesn't sell well, then EA will be forced to lay off staff & shut down studios.
Am I the only one who's had more problems with the higher rated AC3?
I torrented it (i torrent any EA games simply because i refuse to use Origin. Give me a break here i buy everything else) and the single player is honestly no worse than a CoD game. Its just a bunch of giant setpeaces.
In the first 3 minutes you watch crates rain down on you, helicopters and tanks explode, etc.
It's mindless shooting fun and it looks pretty. haha i really dont think it deserves the bad reviews it's getting for "unoriginality" when CoD doesn't have a single ounce of originality in any of their games. At least MoH Warfighter uses a new engine.
Everyone knows EA gives DICE a blank check to make sure BF stays on top w/ CoD. The MoH didn't know how to utilize the frostbite engine to it's full potential. The reason CoD gets nods on the story is because they hire big name talent to write and do the musical scores. They make sure their SP is nothing short of a Michael Bay movie experience. That's not a bad thing. If MoH made an amazing story and untilized Frostbits destructive architecture, they would have a solid game. Also, take out that idiotic slow motion kill shot in MP. That's so annoying.
True, EA blows but MOHW is a great game. You just have to actually play the game instead of trash talking it like you know it (no, the beta does not count).
I bought the game for the PC and i'm deeply dissapointed , the single player is more of the same i was expecting a quality of campaign next to the first MoH, but i was wrong...
The Mutiplayer is a joke, it's totally unbalanced the unlocking system is confusing and doesn't make any sense at alll
And also.... since the game was announced didn't really see much info of the game and they did promises that they didn't delivered...
Let's see how Bo2 works out...
No, this is MOH, that's not what is expected from a MOH game. I did enjoy the single player, but it was short, filled with bugs, poor AI, etc, etc, etc.
The game did not live up to the names MOH or Tier-1, EA should be ashamed.
sp is more of the same .. but at least its done right this time ( loved it )
This game kinda brings back some SOCOM feel to it though.
Note that the problem reviewers are having with this game can and SHOULD easily be said for the past few Call of Duty releases; but look at the scores these same sites give to call of Duty.
Call of Duty is hated because it's been virtually the same damn game since 2008 or so, yet it gets rave reviews and sees record-breaking sales with each iteration.
Warfighter, by all accounts, improves on the last Medal of Honor, but it's getting even worse reviews. How does that make any sense?
Because CoD has more money for it's advertising budget than any other game in history and reviewers will never trash a cash cow, it'll cost them their pay or even their job.
So if BO:2 was complete trash, it would still get a 7.5 or greater score just to keep on Activision's good side.
http://pcgmedia.com/what-ar...
EA is exactly right...
Great article.
All im trying to say is dont be a sheep. Be a individual.
Here is my individual opinion as well as my whole friends list that i play with....
This game is great!
You probably havent even played the game. so dont comment about how good a game is.
and considering your past comments on here you are just another idiot troll on here anyway.
Uh huh. Look, MoH is trying so hard to be CoD that it hurts. With the real thing out in a few days, why in the hell should people take a risk on an inferior copy of a formula perfected by another company?
If you truly want to be an individual, buy something different like Okami HD or some other indy game from PSN or XBLA that offers something different rather than clogging the charts with stuff that's trying to copy already established franchises. Don't reward companies with a "me too" approach to making games.
The fact that Medal of Honour Warfighter went to number one in the UK chart depresses the hell out of me.
your comment disgusts me. did you even read your comment before you posted that trying to prove a point of some sort??
whatever man lol go ahead and pay 60 bucks for your game that comes out soon that plays exactly like the last 5 games in the series. Just because its a military shooter does NOT make it the same game thats "inferior" to your precious completely milked yearly released series....
troll harder man... just dont hurt yourself.
What do these suits know about gaming? Pretty sure publishers and the top people have all the say in what goes in a game these days which is sad.
Let the developers do what they need to do, or at least have a say in what goes in the game... And stop rushing them!
Whats the point in supporting it when you can spend your time doing something else. No point supporting a not so well recieved game, maybe 1/2 DLCs then thats it.
They should take a note of this failure for Battlefield 4 and just put it on hold to make Bad Company 3 instead.
And the reviews are bullshit, the campaign is really good, I haven't played the multiplayer yet so I can't comment on that but as far as the single player goes I am loving it. Really nice pacing, the graphics are beautiful and as for the reviewers saying its much of the same I disagree. I found it to be a very believable experience and I like realism. Call of duty is like a summer blockbuster, loads of action but lacking any real substance. I recommend this game to any FPS fan and I hope the reviews don't cause people to avoid this shooter.
Generally find if a demo is not available at launch then it's because it's not good enough and they hope you'll buy on hype etc.
Well said. DEMO or BUST. Prove your game is good instead of trying to convince us with words. Let us try before we buy.
Scifi FPS bores me to tears (Crysis Warhead was ok) and I still love Half Life. But Bioshock/Boreshock left me wanting.
We can argue personal tastes and go nowhere.
EA is still a turd of a company:
http://www.geek.com/article...
But so are most publishers who push developers to release incomplete titles with little or no quality control. BLack Ops 2 was clearly why MOH:W was rushed out.
Time for big wig heads to roll at EA.
(Raging online gamer voice):
"EA just got burned!, by their own!, shady business tactics!!!" LMAO
You really shouldnt ASSume so often.
EA need to shut up and accept the fact that no one care about moh and the revival of this series is a big failure.
Its better than the last MOH game and getting worse reviews, it doesnt make any sense.
singleplayer is solid, and mp is good but needs a patch to fix a few things...LIKE EVERY GAME released these days needs the same patches.
I'd just like to know, what exactly did Medal of Honor do BETTER than any other game? Its Campaign is shorter than most games, I'd put it right there with Homefront in that regards. It had no motivation, was stereotypical, and the peek system was used before many times....
The only people defending this turd are kids who have never played another game before it and want to justify their $60 purchase.
The game is another COD clone through and through and deserved the trashing that it got from those right proper reviews.
MOH's was like "oh cool lets send them here in the rain for no real reason at all! and then blow everything up, and still say "its authentic like real life"' .....
I won't lie, the game was going somewhere I was interested in it, then it hit a snag and never came out. The visuals were mind blowing at times too, it was awesome in that regards.