Medal of Honor: Warfighter has been out now for a little less than a month and to be honest it didn't do anywhere near as good as EA had hoped, critics from across the web and magazines have unanimously voted this game below that of mediocrity but I disagree with their assessment and this is why.

Many different critics have both praised and condemned the developer Danger Close for attempting to incorporate the at home life aspect to single player campaign.  IGN wrote “Such appeals to a player’s humanity are bold but risky moves in a military shooter… If Medal of Honor extended the same level of respect to its players, Warfighter might have accomplished more than its numerous significant failures.”   But the truth of the matter is that the at home aspect of war is one of the most significant factors of a soldiers ability to perform when in theater.  If he or she is distracted by what’s going on at home then just about anything can go wrong and I believe that Danger Close hit the nail on the head with the inclusion of this aspect of the story in the single player campaign.   It made the story that much better than Call of Duty or Battlefield ever could.

That all said the single player did play as if it was on rails.  Every level was an exercise in the same tried and tested system that the Call of Duty and Battlefield games have made their names with.  A little bit of story followed by big action sequences followed by pick off the guy behind the rock/whatever structure is around at the time.  There are a few missions that the game could have done without like Stumps introduction where all you do is take out a pirate with a sniper rifle on a boat. So I can’t really disagree with most of the reviews out there as the gameplay could have been better.

Visually we couldn't ask for much more.  Medal of Honor: Warfighter is spectacularly beautiful in its scenery and ability to set the atmosphere in the dark and dreary night levels.  Honestly I couldn't ask for more with the way the weapons handle in this game.  You see, unlike other games you do not need to unload a magazine into an enemy to drop him.  A few well-placed rounds will do the trick. GameSpot wrote “The excitement is also undercut by your AI teammates' unlimited supply of ammo; there's never any need to scrounge the ground for enemy weapons, which diminishes the sense that you are in imminent danger.” I have to agree with them as I can fondly remember the mission in the previous Medal of Honor when your team gets pinned down in a hut at the base of a mountain and you are using everything you have to survive the never ending stream of bad guys coming at you.  And being down to just your pistol, now that was a brilliant moment in the Medal of Honor franchise but Warfighter failed to achieve anything like that due to the overabundance of ammunition.

The online side of Warfighter is probably the weakest part of the game.  That is simply related to the completely underwhelming lack of diversity in the levels and multiplayer modes. While the levels do look good and offer a reasonably well designed layout the lack of divers and enjoyable match types (home run in my opinion is unplayable) is just simply sad. To be fair MoH has never really had a strong multiplayer but some kind of improvement is to be expected from a franchise that started back on the PSone.

Over all this game is not as bad as everyone says.  The single player campaign, although short as it is, is still gripping and very enjoyable and offers a more realistic sequence of events that comes to a conclusion that some would describe as lack luster.  But I think it offers a more realistic end than Battlefield's fist fighting a guy in New York to stop a nuke. The fault in this game is the online component and unfortunately too many people now place too high a value on multiplayer components of FPS games.

Tweet

100% of voters think this story ROCKS!

Vote Now!    (2) (0)