Medal of Honor Warfighter reviews cry BF filler only

By Alan Ng - Oct 25, 2012

As we informed you earlier this week, Medal of Honor is now available to download and those of you who have picked it up should have already downloaded a lengthy day one patch that Danger Close released at the first opportunity.

Since the game has just come out, it also means that official reviews are now turning up online as well, and if you are a type of gamer that likes to study as much reviews as possible for a particular game before buying, you are going to be in for an interesting read for sure with the mixed reception that the game appears to be receiving.

Unfortunately, it looks like the majority of gaming publications have not given the game a glowing report, with not one review so far managing to achieve a perfect score – that we have seen anyway. The likes of Eurogamer have only given Medal of Honor Warfighter a 5/10, complaining that the game lacks any identity of its own and merely serves as a ‘filler’ when DICE is unable to release a new Battlefield game each year.

Elsewhere, there’s another 5/10 from Destructoid who have criticized the game by saying that while ‘it’s not exactly bad, it’s not very good either’. Do the reviews now confirm what you have previously thought about the Medal of Honor franchise as a whole? If fans do not have a new Battlefield game to look forward to, the next alternative that will spring to mind is Bad Company without a doubt, pushing Medal of Honor straight to the bottom of EA’s FPS popularity table.

If you have already pre-ordered the game, you’ll be left to make your own conclusions on Warfighter, but if you haven’t picked up the game yet you may be put off slightly after initially thinking the game was going to be excellent. Let us know your initial thoughts on Warfighter and if you pay attention to negative reviews or not before making a purchase.

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter or Google Plus.

Also See: EA servers down Oct 27 for FIFA 18, Madden NFL, NHL suddenly

  • Paul Da Silva

    Played this game and although they trying, they missed out on what was good in old Medal Of Honor multiplayer…the tactical team work in larger combat missions……all they’ve done is follow in COD footsteps to favor the majority of kids greatest tactic…run around like chicken with no head and fire in all directions… least bring back the large maps where waves of attack can take place up front and a sniper can actually do his job from way back.

  • Multiplayer, still too much laggy and with an increasing amount of bugs just popping up. The game is not broken, but they made a cheap job for 60 $

  • Damienc1985

    Not tried the Singleplayer side of the game yet, but have played the multiplayer and I have to say its good and feels smooth but the graphics are shockingly poor.
    This game is supposed to be a DirectX11 game, which means it should look as good as Battlefield 3 if not better considering it is using the exact same engine, but some how Danger Close has managed to make the game look the same or worse than Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 3, on the PC and Modern Warfare 3 is a DirectX9 game and uses a very old graphics engine.
    The most annoying thing though is that the Voice Chat is always enabled unless you take 5 minutes out from the game muting everyone because, otherwise all you get is loud screeching sounds coming through your headphones or music from people who decide to listen to music, whilst playing a game where you need to hear movement and other game sounds.
    Danger Close should have taken more time to develop this game because it just seems a quick bodge job, but it is actually very fun to play but it’s now just going to be a game for me for when I decide I don’t want to play Call Of Duty or Battlefield.

    • Clean with Soap

      1. Shockingly poor? Dude, graphics really cannot get any better than they already are, and any gamer that critiques a games graphics doesn’t know jack about games. I get raged when someone criticizes graphics when the graphics ARE JUST FINE. Warfighter runs off of the Frostbite 2 engine, and it looks like a smoother Battlefield 3. In fact, I was just playing it and my little brother thought I was playing BF3.

      2. PC, now I understand your concern. It looks and plays just fine on the PS3. Looks slightly better than BF3 and loads better than MW3.

      3. I agree, the VoIP system is crap.

      4. It is not Danger Close that should have taken more time, it is EA that should have given DC more time. The plague of video games, and making AAA titles that CoD faegs drool over, is the publishers, investors and other stakeholders do not give game studios the time required to make perfect quality games (That is why Call of Duty, which is only given a single year, looks like the last. Because copy and paste of code and altering already fabricated 3D meshes cuts the development time by a good deal. Plus there are like a thousand people that work on it.) Not to say Warfighter isn’t great, because it is, but if you’re looking for another Call of Duty, this is not your game. If you’re looking for another Battlefield, this is not your game. This is Medal of F*ing Honor. Know the difference.

      5. And while I myself love Battlefield 3 to death, and despise Call of Duty, not because it is a bad game, but because it has made every shooter gamer that plays it a mindless drone, Medal of Honor does things that the other games haven’t. If you play on PS3, there is a little button, L2 that when you hold, you can peak around cover, or in place. It’s a simple little mechanic that makes it stand out from CoD and BF. I’m sure the Xbox and the PC versions have this little mechanic.

      But anyone reviewing who says that the game doesn’t look great, stop reading from there because you’ll just be wasting your time. That person doesn’t know wtf they are talking about. Is this game perfect? No, but what game is? Any game that is made centered around Multiplayer already loses the perfection because the single player will always be failing in some regard.

      Which brings me to MoH: WF’s single player. It’s short as balls. The car chases are a little irritating, but fun overall. I died a lot, playing on Easy. There is this one mission that I have just currently stopped playing to write this: no weapon, but you have to find one, and its a pain. I’ve snapped so many necks. In fact, when playing this game, I feel like watching the movie Act of Valor. Which in and of itself was not a bad movie– pooooooooooooor acting, but I can look past that stuff because I’m not a hipster. If I were playing this simply for Single Player, though, I would have waited a year when it drops down to $20, which it will very quickly.

      The Multiplayer is a lot like Call of Duty’s actually. I feel like Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 and Battlefield 3 had a baby, and it got Battlefield 3’s looks, and Modern Warfare 3’s soul– that is to say, no soul. It will keep most players interested for roughly a year. It will keep some players for a few. And it will keep a decent sized loyal group of people. I imagine it will drop some in a few weeks, when Halo 4 and Black Ops II come out. Probably Assassin’s Creed III.

      Regardless, it’s a good game. Gameplay is familiar. Graphics are great. Sound is good. Voice Chat sucks. Single Player is short. Multiplayer is pretty standard. Overall, buy if you have the money. If you don’t, wait for it drop down in price, or rent it from Gamefly– it is worth at least a try.

      • BXSavageSlapper

        Well said with paragraphs! One of the few comments which actually explains why you came to your conclusions. I feel most of these reviewers and commenters need to revisit Writing 101 as they spout off without explanation.

        I was a little disappointed you feel the Multiplayer is standard being that’s the aspect which brought me back to gaming. I’m a huge BF3 fan and a COD fan five years ago to give you perspective. They Fireteam buddy system sounds intriguing and new, which would bring a cooperative aspect to MP, but I have yet to read if this dramatically affects the strategy of the game.

        Waiting to see if the Multiplayer community develops. Helpful comment though thank you.

      • Now thats Info! You write great reviews. This should be your job man! Im so glad to hear the story is short. Cause they almost fooled me with the thought of going around the world n stuff.I thought it would be a huuuuge story. Well, your story saved me 60 bucks, and yeah….. ill wait a year or so. I’m saying this to Clean with Soap btw.

  • sim

    Has anyone played sp without the patch update. My net aint working and want to know
    if single player is unplayable or not to bad without the patch. Thanks

    • karms

      single player is unplayable even AFTER the patch on pc, anyway. there’s zero options for raw input in single OR multiplayer, so you’re stuck with constant mouse acceleration that for some reason developers who make console games seem to think pc gamers must love….and Damienc hit the nail on the head with “the most annoying thing though,” the voice comms for multiplayer are TERRIBLE. There’s no way to set which audio device the voice comms play/record on, there’s no way to adjust its volume, you can only turn it off (by individually muting people…