moh Medal of Honor: Warfighter

[Doli]

Yeah totally bro, so authentic and dudepro and authentic and drama for soldiers bro, they give so much yo, totally authentic.

:rolleyes:

One of the best "experiences" you've played. How old are you? 12?

That video sums up modern shooters single player perfectly. Danger Close should be ashamed at that sniper part in the game. The player was out in the open and the sniper was missing shots like it was his first time picking up a gun. That whole part looks like Disneyland compared to MoH Allied Assault's Sniper Town level. In Allied Assault in your out in the open then you were dead, same for the snipers in MoH Pacific Assault. I know developers want to make it easier so its more accessible for more people (and more $$$ for them) but this is just a slap in the face.

[TheLegendOfMart]

They are all full of hate and immature. That's a joke of a review.. Flashlights look good? Is he serious? How old is he 12?

The game is not bad.. it's actually good.. 7/10-8/10. Gamespot gave it a 7.9/10 which is far more realistic score than any of these numbskulls who hate on EA.

Btw, for the most part these guys couldn't have even reviewed the game this quickly, especially with multiplayer . so it all reeks like a bunch of them are mad they didn't get their review copies but had to review the game when it came out and they hate EA.

If he liked only flashlights.. i wonder what score he gave to MW3.. because if you want to talk garbage.. that was it.

It's really too bad that *******s like this will turn people off from a great game like this. The single player experience was beautiful and authentic and multiplayer grows on you so much that it's refreshing to have this type of approach in MP. Not to mention that guns feel and sound amazing and the customization is awesome.

So because EA didn't want journalists to get the game early because of a day one patch they are being children and are all giving the game bad reviews?

Sorry but did you even read the post you actually typed out, maybe they are giving the game bad reviews......because........erm..........the game is bad? If they went around giving games bad reviews for no reason I don't think they woud last long in the industry.

Not even Frostbite 2 could save this game, Danger Close had their shot with the first game and it bombed, I don't know why they were given a second chance.

[Twiddle]

So because EA didn't want journalists to get the game early because of a day one patch they are being children and are all giving the game bad reviews?

Sorry but did you even read the post you actually typed out, maybe they are giving the game bad reviews......because........erm..........the game is bad? If they went around giving games bad reviews for no reason I don't think they woud last long in the industry.

Not even Frostbite 2 could save this game, Danger Close had their shot with the first game and it bombed, I don't know why they were given a second chance.

To be fair: It is not that this game is exclusively bad. All the games in this genre are bad. Not saying I didn't enjoy Battlefield 3, for superb multiplayer, but all of these games since the first MW, have had terrible, terrible single-player. But CoD seems to get favorable reviews, while this is essentially the same thing, and it gets bad reviews... So he may have a point. Why is this one getting mistreatment when the others don't? I have said it from the beginning: They should only be developed with multiplayer and released at half the price, because that is really all you are getting. $60 is far too much for these games. That is why I still haven't picked this up. I won't touch the single player in these games, because it is a waste of time.

I don't know how many countless World War II games came out prior to these, but I don't recall any complaints back then... Not too mention you actually learned something somewhat from those. I still prefer them, and wish they would drop this stupid, modern combat crap and go back to the WWII and prior era. That is just my opinion though.

[Slammers]

To be fair: It is not that this game is exclusively bad. All the games in this genre are bad. Not saying I didn't enjoy Battlefield 3, for superb multiplayer, but all of these games since the first MW, have had terrible, terrible single-player. But CoD seems to get favorable reviews, while this is essentially the same thing, and it gets bad reviews... So he may have a point. Why is this one getting mistreatment when the others don't? I have said it from the beginning: They should only be developed with multiplayer and released at half the price, because that is really all you are getting. $60 is far too much for these games. That is why I still haven't picked this up. I won't touch the single player in these games, because it is a waste of time.

I don't know how many countless World War II games came out prior to these, but I don't recall any complaints back then... Not too mention you actually learned something somewhat from those. I still prefer them, and wish they would drop this stupid, modern combat crap and go back to the WWII and prior era. That is just my opinion though.

BF3 and COD both have amazing multiplayer. Personally I think BF3's multiplayer is leagues ahead of COD's but alot of people like COD's more.

This one is getting mistreatment because it deserves it. It's singleplayer and multiplayer are terrible. BF3 got slammed for it's singleplayer in reviews, but it still got scores of 8 and 9/10 because the multiplayer made up for it.

COD's singleplayer may not be great, but it is alot better than this. It's multiplayer may be very similar to MOH's, but is miles ahead in terms of map design, balance, unlock system, polish etc. etc. the list goes on

[compl3x]

IGN gave 4/10 I think

Yikes.

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

I will say this. I personally would enjoy a whole lot more of the car chase sequences. I could maybe even play a whole game of them. Just fun.

So yeah, I have been playing the SP campaign, just completely the aforementioned car chase sequence, and the hate for the game does seem a tad unwarranted. It is not brining absolutely anything new to the table. This is no doubt the case. It is just a First Person Shooter through and through. But what I have played so far, which in fact has not been all that much, has definitely been competent. No doubt about it. So yeah, it is nothing groundbreaking whatsoever, but so far, it is done pretty well. Perhaps it really starts repeating itself. But it has been varied enough to keep me interested. Yes, it is nothing more than a glorified shooting gallery, but what else is it supposed to be?

[qdave]

Was nice to see that Bosnia is still a war-zone :D Damn you EA!

Anyway at first i found the game quite boring, almost unbearable, especially that mission in Philippines, but after you go to normal maps like Pakistan, it gets a lot more fun :)

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

Was nice to see that Bosnia is still a war-zone :D Damn you EA!

Anyway at first i found the game quite boring, almost unbearable, especially that mission in Philippines, but after you go to normal maps like Pakistan, it gets a lot more fun :)

Well then I think I might really like it a lot then, as I am up to that Philippines mission, and besides it, which it is a very bad mission so far, I think the missions leading up to it were all pretty entertaining with a decent amount of variety.

From controlling that drone car or whatever they are called (and I switched immediately to grenades), to the sniper mission, to the driving mission

it has been varied enough between just the normal FPS gun play to keep me fairly interested so far. If it gets better from what I have already played, then yeah, I really see nothing wrong with the game at all other than no originality.

[cragdoo]

Hate it !!!

Clearly built for the konsole kiddies !!

Pros

You can fast rope in from a Black Hawk helicopter

Cons

inexplicable map boundaries

frequently crashes

poor hit boxes

no toggle for aim down sights/crouch

unexplainable inaccessible areas of the map

very poor use of the Frostbite 2 engine

THE F*CKING SLOW-MO DEATH ANIMATION EVERY BLOODY TIME YOU DIE (which is alot for me )

extremely poor hit detection

the weird white/red outline around your fireteam mate/enemies

the fact you can only heal/resupply team *mate* but not yourself or anyone else on your side !!!

the linear feel to maps

weapon sounds

out of bound is a very thin red line (good title for a movie) on the mini map.

spawn points

inability to use mouse on the menus , can't click on tabs you have to click on 'next' , obviously to cater for the Konsole Kiddies

getting stuck on maps for no obvious reason , other than lazy programming

IT'S CLEARLY DESIGNED FOR CONSOLES

I'm just glad I didn't pay full price for it or I would really have gone of on one.

Back to the safely and brilliance of BF3 for me I think , can't believe it's the same game engine.

or to put it another way ....

BF3 is the end result when PC is the lead platform.

MOH:W is the end result when Consoles are the lead platform.

Both using same engine (Frostbite 2) , but worlds apart in looks/feel and playability

Online reviews picking up on same vibe ..

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/10/2...fighter-review

http://www.product-reviews.net/2012/...te-2-failings/

http://www.tweaktown.com/gaming/5018...ter_pc_review/

http://www.gamingexaminer.com/medal-...-at-all/18638/

http://blastmagazine.com/the-magazin...n-originality/

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...fighter-review

http://www.destructoid.com/review-me...r-237311.phtml

[Gaffney]

Battlefield 3 is still undoubtedly the better game, BF3 has another year of life in it. To be honest MOH feels like it would actually suit being a 3rd person shooter, that would have been a good idea because the only other 3rd person shooter multiplayer out there is GOW and Max Payne.

[Slammers]

They lied to us, turns out the multiplayer is running in forstbite 1, hence it ooking so crap.

I got my refund though :)

[Lamp0]

cragdoo,

you seem to make out that it's failure is because of consoles. It's failure is because it's built to sell, rather than because a team of developers were pasionite about a particular game design idea..

I also don't understand why people are still buying these games and acting surprised that they aren't very spectacular.

I mean, wasn't it clear from all the nonsense "tough" guys marketing that this wasn't going to be much more than another military shooter?

[cragdoo]

I think it was the excitement caused by BF3 , and what the engine could deliver but the let down of what DC actually delilvered.

[Muhammad Farrukh]

Single Player campaign is as bad as every critic claims it is.

Multiplayer, however, is pretty good, in my opinion. Really digging it lately. Played for almost 4 non-stop hours last night.

[Boz]

The game is 7/10 or 8/10 as I have said.. 4/10 or 4.5/10 is plain garbage.

Single player was good. Immersive, varied in environments and overall solid with amazing sound.

Multiplayer is very addictive and definitely feels different from COD. It's great I can't stop playing it.

And yes.. all the reviews are done by ADD kids who hate it because it's not Halo or COD. Sure, it's not awesomely original but they didn't go for that.. the missions in single player and characters are from real life. Real life is not that original.

Giving this game 4/10 is nonsense as so are most reviews. Those who have any shred of reputability like GameTrailers and a few others gave this game a score it deserved.. from harsher 6.5 to 7.9.

[Boz]

have you played bf3? How would you compare it's Multiplayer to BF3?

They are different.. that's what EA wanted to make.. MOH is more fast paced, no vehicles, more gun customization, variations, 6 classes each with different capabilities and support actions. BF3 doesn't have support actions because it has vehicles. You can look at it as Close Quarters but with support actions and tighter maps.

I love BF3, but what I like about MOH is that it allows me to jump into the game play a few rounds quickly and more arcade like and jump out.. BF3 is a bit larger involvement.

Still, MOH has it's own flare.. It's more tactical than COD and if you have a good buddy as a Fireteam mate you guys can truly rock the round awesomely as you rely on each other for ammo, respawns and health.

You can see my stats and what I unlocked and all the stuff it supports here:

http://battlelog.battlefield.com/mohw/soldier/Bozzified/stats/174729378/xbox/

What's also interesting and I think is very original is Nations. They've introduced Nations as international competition. So you can play for your own country, contribute with TOKENS and you rank your country higher. It's interesting concept I like.

[Slammers]

I can't stress how much I would recommend people do not purchase this game. It looks like the people saying it is not that bad are trying to make themselves feel better for blowing the cash on it. The multiplayer is terrible, completey unbalanced. Just play bf3 close quarters, the only thing moh has over that is the fireteams, but bf3 has squads anyway. Map design is the worst part. Feels like a quake 3 mod. The only game I have ever got a refund from, dont feel the slightest bit bad. This game's multiplayer needed a proper pc beta test, then another 6 month's of dev.

[Boz]

I can't stress how much I would recommend people do not purchase this game. It looks like the people saying it is not that bad are trying to make themselves feel better for blowing the cash on it. The multiplayer is terrible, completey unbalanced. Just play bf3 close quarters, the only thing moh has over that is the fireteams, but bf3 has squads anyway. Map design is the worst part. Feels like a quake 3 mod. The only game I have ever got a refund from, dont feel the slightest bit bad. This game's multiplayer needed a proper pc beta test, then another 6 month's of dev.

I have bought seriously sh** games in my life so money is not a problem.. I actually bought this game for PC and Xbox 360.. you sound like those ADD people who can't invest 3 minutes to figure out and learn how the game works before trashing it. I guess you are in good company with those stupid reviewers who give it 4 / 10 reviews.

Btw, if there are things to criticize about this game is that there are still some bugs like some achievements not unlocking, some reload animations don't trigger, and game will lock up sometimes.. (rarely) but it will happen.

[ViperAFK]

I can't stress how much I would recommend people do not purchase this game. It looks like the people saying it is not that bad are trying to make themselves feel better for blowing the cash on it. The multiplayer is terrible, completey unbalanced. Just play bf3 close quarters, the only thing moh has over that is the fireteams, but bf3 has squads anyway. Map design is the worst part. Feels like a quake 3 mod. The only game I have ever got a refund from, dont feel the slightest bit bad. This game's multiplayer needed a proper pc beta test, then another 6 month's of dev.

Looks like they didn't learn anything from moh 2010 then, because the horrible maps were my biggest problem with that game too. glad I didn't get this one. I see no reason at all why one would play the mutliplayer in this over bf3.

I actually got a refund on the moh 2010 myself xD, also the only game I've ever gotten a refund from.

[Boz]

have you played bf3? How would you compare it's Multiplayer to BF3?

I made a collage of some of the most fun I had in the game so you can see what it feels like.. this is not a promo video, I made it from my own footage.